This study explores the intersec ti on of shared and servant leadership in fostering innova ti on by using bibliometric techniques to analyze 434 scholarly publica ti ons. Using co ‐cita ti on, co ‐word and bibliographic coupling analyses, this study iden ti fies research trends, thema ti c clusters and gaps in the literature. The results show that while shared and servant leadership have a significant impact on the innova ti on process, their role is s ti ll under ‐researched and frag ‐ mented. This study contributes to leadership theory by highligh ti ng the role of shared leadership in team ‐based col ‐ labora ti on and decentralized decision making, while extending the theore ti cal founda ti ons of servant leadership in terms of ethical leadership, psychological safety and sustainability of innova ti on. By integra ti ng these models, we con ‐ tribute to the development of hybrid leadership approaches that promote a trust ‐based culture and context ‐sensi ti ve strategies for innova ti on ‐driven organiza ti ons. Furthermore, we explore how the transi ti on from hierarchical to shared and servant leadership fosters agility, knowledge sharing and innova ti on, especially in knowledge ‐intensive industries that rely on cross ‐func ti onal collabora ti on. Future research should inves ti gate shared and servant leadership in all phases of the innova ti on process, especially in the later innova ti on phases, to address role ambiguity and ensure align ‐ ment between people ‐centered leadership and strategic innova ti on requirements. Keywords: Shared leadership, Servant leadership, Innova ti on, Bibliometric analysis EXPLORING THE SYNERGY: THE ROLE OF SHARED AND SERVANT LEADERSHIP IN THE INNOVATION PROCESS THROUGH BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS Bojana Markovska Klepec School of Business and Economics, University of Ljubljana bmarkovska@yahoo.co.uk Miha Škerlavaj School of Business and Economics, University of Ljubljana BI Norwegian Business School Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 79 Abstract A large body of research has examined the im ‐ pact of di fferent leadership styles on the innova ti on process, including transforma ti onal and transac ‐ ti onal (Alrowwad, Abualoush, & Masa’deh, 2020; Singh, Del Giudice, Chierici, & Graziano, 2020; Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010; Podsako ff, MacKenzie, Moorman & Fe tt er 1990). There has also been a growing interest in new ‐genre leadership models that emphasize col ‐ lec ti ve and service ‐oriented leadership principles (Hannah, Sumanth, Lester, Cavarre tt a, 2014; Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). Among these, shared leadership and servant leadership have emerged as parti cularly relevant for fostering an innova ti on ‐ 1 INTRODUCTION Leadership plays a central role in the innova ti on process as it influences the condi ti ons that foster cre ‐ a ti vity, collabora ti on and the implementa ti on of new ideas (Amabile, 1996; Mumford, Sco tt , Gaddis & Strange, 2002). The dynamic nature of innova ti on re ‐ quires a leadership style that goes beyond tradi ti onal hierarchical structures and enables a more inclusive, parti cipa ti ve and service ‐orientated approach (Yukl, 2013). As organiza ti ons seek to improve their inno ‐ va ti on capabili ti es, leadership research has evolved to explore new paradigms to meet these changing demands (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Vol. 14, No. 1, 79 ‐100 doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2025.v14n01a05 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 80 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis friendly environment by distribu ti ng authority, em ‐ powering teams and priori ti zing the well ‐being and development of followers (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014; Wu, Cormican and Chen, 2020; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Eva et al., 2019; Liden et al., 2014; Zhu, Liao, Yam, & Johnson, 2018; Pearce & Conger, 2002). Shared leadership is characterized by a decen ‐ tralized approach in which leadership tasks are dis ‐ tributed among team members instead of focusing on a single person (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007). This model encourages mutual influence and collabora ti on and enables flexible decision ‐making and knowledge sharing, which are cri ti cal for inno ‐ va ti on (Ensley, Hmieleski & Pearce, 2006). Shared leadership improves adaptability and innova ti on by distribu ti ng influence and decision ‐making among team members. In contrast to hierarchical models, it encourages collabora ti on, knowledge sharing and collec ti ve responsibility (Pearce & Conger, 2002; Carson et al, 2007; Hoch, 2013; D’Innocenzo et al, 2016) and leverages diverse exper ti se to improve problem solving and agility (Ensley et al, 2006; Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). Studies empha ‐ size its role in fostering crea ti ve risk ‐taking, psycho ‐ logical safety and team mo ti va ti on (Zhu, Song, Wang & Li, 2023; Nicolaides et al., 2014), which drive innova ti on, especially in knowledge ‐intensive industries (Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013; Carmeli, Reiter ‐ Palmon, & Ziv, 2010). However, research predomi ‐ nantly focuses on early stages of innova ti on such as idea ti on, where collabora ti on and idea genera ‐ ti on thrive (Zhu, Liao, Yam, & Johnson, 2018; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004), while its role in implemen ‐ ta ti on is only studied to a limited extent (Serban & Roberts, 2016; D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). In addi ‐ ti on, challenges such as role ambiguity, trust deficits and coordina ti on issues can hinder its e ffec ‐ ti veness (Lee, Lyubovnikova, Tian & Knight, 2020; Day et al., 2004; Small & Rentsch, 2011; Nicolaides et al., 2014). Servant leadership, on the other hand, focuses on the leader’s role as a servant to their team, pri ‐ ori ti zing their needs, personal growth and profes ‐ sional development (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Henderson, 2008). By cul ti va ti ng a suppor ti ve envi ‐ ronment, servant leadership fosters employee en ‐ gagement, crea ti vity, and long ‐term commitment to innova ti ve goals (Krog & Govender, 2015). Ser ‐ vant leadership also cul ti vates a suppor ti ve envi ‐ ronment where employees feel valued, which fosters trust, empowerment and crea ti vity (Eva et al., 2019; van Dierendonck, 2011; Greenleaf, 1977). It increases psychological safety and encourages risk ‐taking and knowledge sharing ‐ important drivers of innova ti on in knowledge ‐intensive indus ‐ tries (Edmondson, 2018; van Dierendonck & Pa tt er ‐ son, 2015; Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser, 2014; Yoshida, Sendjaya, & Cooper, 2014; Zada, Zada, Ali, Jun, Contreras ‐Barraza & Cas ti llo, 2022; Zhang, Zheng, Zhang, Xu, Liu & Chen, 2021). Research highlights its posi ti ve impact on employee crea ti vity and organiza ti onal innova ti on (Liden et al., 2008; Neubert, Hunter, Tolen ti no, 2016; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017) through key dimensions such as empower ‐ ment, humility, providing direc ti ons, authen ti city, interpersonal acceptance and stewardship (van Dierendonck, 2011). Both shared leadership and servant leadership are increasingly being researched as drivers of inno ‐ va ti on. However, the broader conceptual landscape remains fragmented and the intersec ti ons of these leadership styles with innova ti on ‐related topics such as knowledge sharing, crea ti vity, and team collabo ‐ ra ti on remain insu fficiently summarized (Bunjak, Bruch, & Černe, M, 2022; Hoch, 2013; Lee, Lee, and Seo, 2015; Yang, Liu, and Gu, 2017). Despite growing evidence of their benefits, shared and servant lead ‐ ership require further inves ti ga ti on, especially in later stages of innova ti on (Sousa & van Dieren ‐ donck, 2017). Challenges such as role ambiguity also need to be addressed to ensure a balance between people ‐centered leadership and strategic innova ti on requirements (Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). Future re ‐ search should inves ti gate how these leadership models integrate into structured innova ti on pro ‐ cesses while mi ti ga ti ng poten ti al implementa ti on challenges (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017; Yoshida et al, 2014; Liden et al, 2014; Neubert et al, 2016; Zada et al, 2022; Zhang et al, 2021). This study provides a systema ti c overview of shared and servant leadership of the current litera ‐ ture, with a par ti cular focus on their impact on the innova ti on process. The research is guided by the fol ‐ lowing research ques ti ons: 1) What are the key re ‐ search trends and cita ti on pa tt erns in studies Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 81 examining the role of shared and servant leadership in innova ti on? 2) What are the fields of research as ‐ sociated with shared and servant leadership? 3) How has the scholarly discussion evolved regarding the integra ti on of shared and servant leadership in inno ‐ va ti on research? We address these research ques ti ons by trian ‐ gula ti ng across three bibliometric techniques: co ‐ cita ti on analysis, co ‐word analysis and bibliographic coupling. In addi ti on to the bibliographic analysis in VOSviewer, we manually categorized 434 ar ti cles into thema ti c clusters based on their abstracts, which refer to specific topics related to the innova ‐ ti on process in order to gain a more nuanced un ‐ derstanding of their relevance to the innova ti on process. This clustering step, which was not prede ‐ fined in the search phase, allows for a more flexible and context ‐dependent analysis of the role of lead ‐ ership in fostering innova ti on. By systema ti cally an ‐ alyzing the intellectual structure of the field, iden ti fying research clusters and mapping emerging trends, this study aims to contribute to a more in ‐ tegrated and comprehensive understanding of shared and servant leadership in rela ti on to inno ‐ va ti on. With this study, we aim to advance leadership and innova ti on theory by exploring how shared and servant leadership foster collabora ti on, ethical leadership and sustainable innova ti on. Through a bibliographic analysis, we aim to improve our un ‐ derstanding of shared leadership by highligh ti ng its role in team ‐based collabora ti on and decentralized decision ‐making (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nico ‐ laides et al., 2014). Furthermore, we aim to extend the theore ti cal founda ti on of servant leadership by emphasizing its influence on ethical leadership, psy ‐ chological safety and sustainability of innova ti on (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011). This study also aims to contribute to the development of hybrid leadership models by integra ti ng princi ‐ ples of shared and servant leadership that cul ti vate a trust ‐based culture leading to the development of context ‐sensi ti ve approaches tailored to innova ‐ ti on ‐driven organiza ti ons and ul ti mately foster their long ‐term sustainability (Greenleaf, 1977; Avolio et al, 2009; Hoch & Dulebohn, 2017; Eva, Robin, Send ‐ jaya, van Dierendonck, & Liden, 2019). Our research aims to explore how the transi ti on from hierarchi ‐ cal to shared and servant leadership can improve agility, knowledge sharing and innova ti on, espe ‐ cially in knowledge ‐intensive industries where cross ‐func ti onal collabora ti on is cri ti cal (Tønnessen, Dhir, & Flåten, 2021; Lafuente, Vaillant, & Rabe ti no, 2023; Pearce & Conger, 2002; Yukl, 2010; Chen, Zada, Khan, & Saba, 2022). 2 METHODOLOGY In order to do jus ti ce to the complexity of lead ‐ ership research, we have applied three bibliometric techniques: co ‐cita ti on analysis, co ‐occurrence anal ‐ ysis and bibliographic coupling. We used the VOSviewer so ft ware for this purpose. Bibliometric analysis has become an important method for the systema ti c review of academic literature, enabling researchers to recognise pa tt erns and rela ti onships within academic fields (Kessler, 1963; Aria & Cuccu ‐ rullo, 2017; Moed, 2006). Bibliometric methods serve as essen ti al tools for analyzing the intellectual structure of research fields, uncovering trends and mapping the develop ‐ ment of scien ti fic contribu ti ons (Donthu, Kumar, Mukherjee, Pandey & Lim, 2021; Zupic & Čater, 2015; Börner, Chen, & Boyack, 2003). These meth ‐ ods enable the iden ti fica ti on of cita ti on links, co ‐au ‐ thorship networks and thema ti c clusters and thus provide a deeper understanding of the subject area (Small, 1973; Leydesdor ff, 2007). Science mapping in par ti cular provides insights into the evolving knowledge base and interrela ti onships within lead ‐ ership research (Cobo, López ‐Herrera, Herrera ‐ Viedma, & Herrera, 2011). Bibliometric research consists of two primary analy ti cal approaches: performance analysis and science mapping. Performance analysis focuses on quan ti ta ti ve assessments such as number of publi ‐ ca ti ons and cita ti on impact, while science mapping explores rela ti onal structures by inves ti ga ti ng cita ‐ ti on networks, analyzing co ‐words and bibliographic coupling (Moral ‐Muñoz, Herrera ‐Viedma, San ti ste ‐ ban ‐Espejo, & Cobo, 2020; Waltman, van Eck, & Noyons, 2010). Given our interest in exploring con ‐ ceptual rela ti onships within leadership research, we priori ti zed science mapping techniques. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 82 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 2.1 Database and Search Protocol The data was extracted from the Web of Sci ‐ ence database using the keywords “shared leader ‐ ship” or “servant leadership”. These terms were applied to all fields of scholarly publica ti ons pub ‐ lished between 1978 and 2025. The search yielded 3,338 relevant ar ti cles from disciplines such as man ‐ agement (1,453), business (576) and applied psy ‐ chology (466). Considering the large amount of publica ti ons (N=3,338) we found in the Web of Sci ‐ ence, we applied a cita ti on threshold of ≥50 cita ‐ ti ons to priori ti ze par ti cularly influen ti al works. The number of cita ti ons is an indicator of impact and rel ‐ evance in scien ti fic discourse. Our review thus fo ‐ cuses on well ‐established contribu ti ons while maintaining methodological rigor. Subsequently, 434 documents were selected for analysis. Figure 1: PRISMA Flow Diagram of Study Selec ti on Process The retrieved data was analyzed using the VOSviewer so ft ware, which enables the visualiza ‐ ti on of bibliometric networks, including cita ti on im ‐ pact and thema ti c clusters (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010; Chen, 2016). 2.2 Co ‐Cita ti on Analysis To examine the structure of leadership re ‐ search, we conducted a co ‐cita ti on analysis, a method that assesses how o ft en two ar ti cles are cited together, thus indica ti ng thema ti c similari ti es (Small, 1973). This approach enables the iden ti fica ‐ ti on of knowledge domains and the historical devel ‐ opment of a research field (Leydesdor ff, 2007). We took a structured approach to our analysis and began by crea ti ng a map based on bibliographic data. We then extracted and processed data from bib ‐ liographic database files. For the analysis, we used a co ‐cita ti on method with cited references as the unit of analysis, using the full count as the coun ti ng method. To refine the dataset, we set the minimum number of cita ti ons to 20 to ensure that we focused on the most important and most frequently cited works. 2.3 Co ‐Occurrence Analysis To explore the conceptual structure of leader ‐ ship research, we conducted a co ‐occurrence anal ‐ ysis of keywords. In contrast to cita ti on ‐based approaches, co ‐occurrence analysis examines the actual content of documents to uncover thema ti c pa tt erns and underlying research topics (Callon, Cour ti al, Turner, & Bauin, 1983). For the co ‐occurrence analysis, we first created a map based on bibliographic data and then ex ‐ tracted and processed data from bibliographic database files. The analysis focused on co ‐occur ‐ rence, where we used authors’ keywords as the unit of analysis and used full coun ti ng as the coun ti ng method. To ensure relevance, we set the minimum threshold for the occurrence of a keyword to four in order to emphasize the most frequently used terms in the dataset. 2.4 Bibliographic Coupling To iden ti fy emerging trends and influen ti al re ‐ search contribu ti ons, we conducted a bibliographic coupling analysis, a method that links ar ti cles based on shared references. This approach enables the iden ti fica ti on of contemporary research clusters and knowledge boundaries (Glänzel & Czerwon, 1996; Kessler, 1963). Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 83 Bibliographic coupling was used in this analysis, with the documents as the unit of analysis and the full count as the coun ti ng method. To refine the dataset, we set the threshold for the minimum oc ‐ currence of a keyword to 190 to ensure that we fo ‐ cused on the most important and most frequently linked documents. 2.5 Clusters related to innova ti on In addi ti on to the bibliographic analysis in VOSviewer, we manually categorized the 434 ar ti ‐ cles into di fferent clusters based on their abstracts, which are based on specific topics related to the in ‐ nova ti on process. 3 RESULTS This sec ti on presents the results of the three bibliometric analyses previously carried out with VOS Viewer. Based on these results, we conducted a systema ti c literature search to iden ti fy and cate ‐ gorize important clusters. The analysis shows the re ‐ la ti onships between the ar ti cles, represented by the number of references cited together, as well as the link strength — a posi ti ve numerical value indica ti ng the degree of connec ti on between the ar ti cles. A higher value for link strength indicates a stronger link. Taken together, these links and ar ti cles form a bibliographic network (Van Eck & Waltman, 2010). Our final results refer to the publica ti ons with the highest link strength within each cluster, highligh ti ng the most influen ti al studies. 3.1 Co ‐Cita ti on Analysis Of the 24,501 cited references, we obtained 143 ar ti cles that formed 3 clusters (Table 1), which are ad ‐ di ti onally shown in the Co ‐Cita ti on map (Figure 1). The total link strength based on these images is 175,805, and there are 154 links between the cited ar ti cles. Through network analysis, we iden ti fied three conceptual clusters: Shared and Distributed Leader ‐ ship in Teams; Leadership Theories and Mo ti va ti on Frameworks and Innova ti on Processes and Collab ‐ ora ti on Technologies. The co ‐cita ti on analysis revealed three key con ‐ ceptual clusters that illustrate the development of leadership research in rela ti on to teamwork, mo ti va ‐ ti on and innova ti on. These clusters provide a struc ‐ tured understanding of how leadership theories and frameworks contribute to organiza ti onal dynamics, par ti cularly in fostering collabora ti on and innova ti on. The Shared and Distributed Leadership in Teams cluster highlights the move away from hierarchical leadership models towards more collabora ti ve and decentralized structures. Shared and distributed leadership have gained prominence in organiza ti onal research as they can improve team decision ‐making, collec ti ve problem ‐solving and adaptability in com ‐ plex environments. The findings are consistent with previous research sugges ti ng that shared leadership promotes knowledge integra ti on, psychological safety and team innova ti on (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, 2004; Klein, Ziegert, Knight, & Xiao, 2006). The studies in this cluster suggest that shared lead ‐ !"#$%&'#(&')*+,$*-.,%&' /%#&%$+"*0'*('1%#2+ 3((45#,*4('6$47%++%+'#(&' 8499#-4$#,*4('1%7"(494:*%+ /%#&%$+"*0' 1"%4$*%+'#(&' ;4,*5#,*4(' <$#2%=4$>+ Figure 2: Co ‐Cita ti on map Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 84 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis ership not only promotes team cohesion, but also contributes to a sustained competiti ve advantage by u ti lizing collec ti ve intelligence. The Leadership Theories and Mo ti va ti on Frame ‐ works cluster examines the theore ti cal founda ti ons of leadership, in par ti cular the theories of servant lead ‐ ership and human mo ti va ti on. Servant leadership has been linked to ethical leadership, leader ‐member ex ‐ change theory, and transforma ti onal leadership, sug ‐ ges ti ng a strong moral and rela ti onal founda ti on for leadership e ffec ti veness (Liden, Wayne, Zhao, & Hen ‐ derson, 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Barbuto & Wheeler, 2006). The cluster shows how leadership ap ‐ proaches that emphasize trust, empowerment and ethical responsibility create a psychologically safe en ‐ vironment that is conducive to knowledge sharing and innova ti on. Furthermore, these findings emphasize the importance of mo ti va ti onal theories, par ti cularly Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, in understanding how leaders inspire and engage teams. The Innova ti on Processes and Collabora ti on T echnologies cluster links leadership to innova ti on and shows how leadership theories interact with techno ‐ logical advances, team collabora ti on and dynamic or ‐ ganiza ti onal processes (Parris & Peachey, 2013). Studies in this category emphasize the role of leader ‐ ship in facilita ti ng communica ti on, managing dis ‐ tributed teams and fostering a climate conducive to innova ti on (Fry, 2003; Bass, 1999; Dinh et al., 2004). 3.2 Co ‐Word Analysis In the co ‐occurrence analysis (co ‐word), the minimum number of occurrences of author key ‐ words was set to 5, resul ti ng in 42 elements of the 1088 keywords. The total link strength based on these keyword ‐related images is 1,282, and there are 44 links between keywords. These clusters are summarized in Table 2. It contains the name of each cluster, a list of the keywords with the highest fre ‐ quency and the number of all keywords included. Table 1: Co ‐Cita ti on Analysis: Conceptual Clusters in Shared and Servant Leadership and Innova ti on Co ‐cita ti on Cluster Content Main Authors Main Theories Number of Documents Evolu ti on of the Field Shared and Distributed Leadership in Teams This cluster focuses on team ‐based and distributed leadership approaches, emphasizing shared leadership, group dynamics, and collabora ti on in decision ‐ making processes. Carson et al. (2007), Pearce (2004), Klein et al. (2006), Green (1995), Ashforth (1989) Shared Leadership Theory, Servant Leadership Theory, Theories of Group Dynamics, Decision ‐Making Theories, Social Comparison Theory, Theories of Organiza ti onal Behavior 58 Shi ft from individual leadership to collabora ti ve, distributed approaches, fostering team innova ti on and adaptability. Leadership Theories and Mo ti va ti on Frameworks Ar ti cles in this cluster focus on leadership styles, servant leadership principles, and human mo ti va ti on theories. Liden et al. (2008), Van Dierendonck (2011), Barbuto and Wheeler, (2006), Eva et al., (2019) Servant Leadership Theory, Maslow’s Theory of Human Mo ti va ti on, Transforma ti onal Leadership Theory, Ethical Leadership Framework, LMX Theory 67 Development of servant leadership and its applica ti on to modern organiza ti onal se tti ngs Innova ti on Processes and Collabora ti on Technologies This cluster explores how leadership interacts with team collabora ti on, innova ti on processes, and communica ti on technologies, linking leadership to organiza ti onal dynamics and innova ti on. Fry (2003), Bass (1999), Burns (1978), Brown (2005, 2006), Dinh et al. (2004), Judge (2004), Green (1995), Ashforth (1989) Transforma ti onal Leadership Theory, Transac ti onal Leadership Theory, Shared Leadership, Servant Leadership, Social Comparison Theory, Theories of Group Dynamics, Organiza ti onal Behavior, Ethical Frameworks 18 Evolu ti on from individual ‐centric leadership models to team ‐based, collabora ti ve leadership approaches that drive innova ti on and adapta ti on in organiza ti ons. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 85 Figure 3: Co ‐occurrence (co ‐word) map Table 2: Co ‐Word Analysis: Key Themes in Shared and Servant Leadership Co ‐occurrence Cluster Keywords Number of authors’ keywords Psychological Empowerment and Engagement psychological empowerment, engagement, organiza ti onal ci ti zenship behavior, organiza ti onal iden ti fica ti on, empowering leadership, psychological capital and work engagement 10 Employee Empowerment, Team Crea ti vity and Knowledge sharing empowerment, job cra ft ing, mul ti level analysis, self ‐leadership, teams, intrinsic mo ti va ti on, knowledge sharing, shared leadership, team crea ti vity 10 Leadership Communica ti on and Team Dynamics transforma ti onal leadership, meta ‐analysis, leader ‐member exchange, communica ti on, followership, leader humility, team e ffec ti veness, team leadership, teamwork 9 Innova ti ve Leadership and Organiza ti onal Behavior employee crea ti vity, innova ti on, innova ti ve behavior, job sa ti sfac ti on, performance, psychological safety, thriving, trust in leader, servant leadership 9 Entrepreneurial Leadership and Firm Performance entrepreneurship, firm performance, hospitability, organiza ti onal ci ti zens, personality, service climate, service quality, strategic leadership 8 Ethical and Authen ti c Leadership in Organiza ti ons authen ti c leadership, ethical leadership, hospitality industry, leadership development, networks, responsible leadership, scale development, sustainability 8 Collabora ti on, Ethics, and Virtual Teams collabora ti on, ethics, leadership, literature review, team performance, trust, virtual teams 7 Collec ti ve and Distributed Leadership in Management collec ti ve leadership, distributed leadership, gender, management, power, systema ti c review 6 Leadership Theory and Systema ti c Reviews content analysis, leadership theory, measurement, review, systema ti c literature review 5 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 86 Using a co ‐word analysis, we iden ti fied concep ‐ tual clusters that characterize contemporary lead ‐ ership discourse and emphasize its role in knowledge sharing, ethics and innova ti on. These findings reveal a shi ft from hierarchical models to collabora ti ve, ethical and innova ti on ‐driven leader ‐ ship paradigms and illustrate how leadership theo ‐ ries are evolving in parallel with technological and organiza ti onal complexity. An important trend is the shift towards shared leadership, where leadership functions as a collective process rather than an individual at ‐ tribute (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, 2004). Cross ‐ functional collaboration fosters team creativity and problem ‐solving especially in knowledge ‐in ‐ tensive industries (Raes et al., 2011). Studies also show that servant leadership promotes shared leadership dynamics and improves team agility and project success (Zhu, Liao, Yam & Johnson, 2018; Van Dierendonck, 2011). The effectiveness of leadership increasingly depends on ethical leadership, psychological em ‐ powerment and employee well ‐being (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011). Servant and trans ‐ formational leadership promote trust, trans ‐ parency and psychological safety and encourage employees to take creative risks (Fehr & Gelfand, 2012; Christensen et al., 2015). Psychological em ‐ powerment strengthens knowledge sharing and innovation (Miao et al., 2013; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2016) and reinforces the role of servant leadership in building ethical and sustainable cultures (Eva et al., 2019). Leadership today is driving digital adapta ti on, virtual collabora ti on and entrepreneurial innova ti on (Zhang & Parker, 2019). The rise of remote work re ‐ quires new competences in digital leadership and virtual team management (Morrison ‐Smith & Ruiz, 2019). Entrepreneurial leadership is also important to manage uncertainty and foster innova ti on (Trastek, Hamilton, & Niles, 2014). 3.3 Bibliographic Coupling In this group, all 434 primary articles were an ‐ alyzed, 190 of which resulted in 69 articles that formed 3 clusters (Figure 3). The total link strength was 3,926, and there were 1,243 links between these documents. These clusters are summarized in Table 3. It shows the name of each cluster, the content summary, the main authors and the num ‐ ber of documents included in the final represen ‐ tation. The first cluster ‐ Servant Leadership and Orga ‐ niza ti onal Behavior ‐ represents ar ti cles that focus on leaders who priori ti ze the growth, well ‐being and empowerment of their team members. The second cluster – Shared Leadership and Team Collabora ti on ‐ includes ar ti cles dealing with decentralized deci ‐ sion ‐making, team ‐based leadership and the distri ‐ bu ti on of leadership tasks among members of an organiza ti on or team. The third cluster ‐ Educa ti onal Leadership and Policy – contains ar ti cles dealing with leadership approaches in educa ti on, policy im ‐ plica ti ons and the role of leadership in academic in ‐ s ti tu ti ons. Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis Figure 4: Bibliographic coupling map Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 87 The proximity of the first and second clusters in ‐ dicates some overlap in the literature on shared and servant leadership. These overlaps may include stud ‐ ies that compare the two styles, examine their com ‐ bined e ffects, or explore their applicability in similar contexts such as team performance or organiza ti onal change. The connec ti ons between the nodes indicate strong and more frequent links to larger thema ti c overlaps. Shared leadership and servant leadership are dis ti nct areas but have commonali ti es, such as emphasizing the empowerment of others and foster ‐ ing collabora ti on (Eva et al., 2019, Nicholaides et al., 2014). The overlap between the clusters suggests that both styles can be applied in complementary ways to improve organiza ti onal outcomes. Ar ti cles at the intersec ti on of the clusters (closer to the bound ‐ ary) are likely to examine how shared and servant leadership interact or compare with each other. These studies could explore hybrid models or the contextual appropriateness of the two styles. 3.4 Thema ti c Classifica ti on of Innova ti on Research Beyond the bibliographic analysis in VOSviewer, we also manually sorted the 434 ar ti cles into di ffer ‐ ent clusters by grouping them according to key topics related to the innova ti on process based on their sum ‐ maries. These clusters, shown in the table, provide a structured overview of the primary research areas. Table 3: Bibliographic Coupling Analysis: Key Studies in Shared and Servant Leadership Table 4: Key Topic Clusters in the Innova ti on Process: Abstract Analysis Bibliographic coupling Cluster Content Main Theories Main Authors Number of Documents Prac ti cal Implica ti ons Shared Leadership and Team Collabora ti on This cluster examines the role of shared leadership in fostering team collabora ti on, how teams distribute leadership roles, and the impact on team e ffec ti veness. Shared Leadership Theory, Team E ffec ti veness Theory, Social Iden ti ty Theory D’Innocenzo et al., (2016), Nicolaides et al. (2014), Lee (2020), Wang et al. (2014); Wu et al. (2020) 36 Teams should embrace shared leadership prac ti ces to distribute responsibili ti es e ffec ti vely. Encouraging collabora ti ve decision ‐making and leveraging team members’ diverse exper ti se can enhance crea ti vity, innova ti on, and overall performance in complex, dynamic se tti ngs. Servant Leadership and Organiza ti on al Behavior This cluster focuses on how servant leadership fosters employee engagement, ethical decision ‐making, and posi ti ve organiza ti onal behavior. Servant Leadership Theory, Ethical Leadership Theory, Organiza ti onal Behavior Theory Liden et al. (2008), Liden (2014), Van Dierendonck (2011), Eva et al, (2019) 29 Organiza ti ons should foster a culture of adaptability and innova ti on by suppor ti ng open communica ti on and psychological safety in teams. Developing frameworks for handling conflict and promo ti ng learning across organiza ti onal structures can strengthen innova ti on capacity. Educa ti onal Leadership and Policy This cluster explores leadership approaches in educa ti onal se tti ngs, policy implica ti ons, and the role of leadership in academic ins ti tu ti ons. Educa ti onal Leadership Theory, Policy Implementa ti on Theory Heck & Hallinger (2010), Leithwood (2008), Wahlstrom (2008) 4 Educa ti onal ins ti tu ti ons should integrate leadership training for administrators to improve decision ‐making and policy implementa ti on. Cluster Ar ti cle count Innova ti on and Development 191 Crea ti vity and Idea Genera ti on 81 Knowledge Sharing and Collabora ti on 69 Organiza ti onal Change 67 Implementa ti on of Ideas 26 Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 88 3.4.1 Innova ti on and Development In the first cluster iden ti fied, Innova ti on and De ‐ velopment, we classified 191 ar ti cles based on their abstracts that deal with shared, or servant leader ‐ ship topics related to this theme. Servant leadership fosters an environment in which employees feel valued, psychologically safe and mo ti vated to take crea ti ve risks (Liden et al., 2014; van Dierendonck, 2011). By priori ti zing trust and ethical responsibility, servant leaders foster a culture that supports innova ti on (Fehr & Gelfand, 2012). Psychological safety is par ti cularly important in this context as it encourages risk ‐taking and re ‐ duces the fear of failure (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011). Schwarz et al. (2016) emphasize how mo ti va ti on in public service — a key component of servant leadership ‐ promotes work performance and innova ti on. In contrast to hierarchical models, shared lead ‐ ership distributes decision ‐making and increases adaptability and collec ti ve crea ti vity (Dinh et al., 2014; Bolden, 2011; Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, & Roe, 2011). Research emphasizes the strong correla ti on with entrepreneurial success and innova ti on in start ‐ ups (Ensley et al., 2006). Teams that prac ti ce shared leadership are more responsive to change and u ti lize di fferent perspec ti ves to solve problems (Carson et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2014). Studies also suggest that shared leadership works be tt er in complex and dynamic environments than tradi ti onal leadership (Pearce & Sims, 2002; D’Innocenzo et al., 2016). Innova ti on thrives in a knowledge ‐intensive en ‐ vironment where exper ti se is shared and u ti lized (Pearce, 2004). Servant leadership fosters a culture of knowledge sharing that empowers employees to make a meaningful contribu ti on (Schwarz et al., 2016; Miao et al., 2014). Proac ti ve work behaviors encouraged under both shared and servant leader ‐ ship— increase engagement in innova ti ve prac ti ces (Zhang & Parker, 2019). At a strategic level, shared leadership in top management strengthens deci ‐ sion ‐making and the u ti liza ti on of knowledge (Mi ‐ halache et al., 2014). Sustainable innova ti on requires leadership that aligns crea ti ve endeavors with long ‐term strategic goals (Neubert, Carlson, Kacmar, Roberts, & Chonko, 2009). Entrepreneurial endeavors thrive especially under strong leadership that deals with uncertainty and promotes agility (Klotz, Hmieleski, Bradley, & Busenitz, 2014; Yammarino, Dionne, Chun, & Dansereau, 2005). Psychological safety is crucial for encouraging experimenta ti on and crea ti ve problem solving (De Jong et al., 2016). Servant leadership en ‐ hances this by promo ti ng ethical responsibility and well ‐being (Schaubroeck et al., 2012). By crea ti ng an environment in which employees feel encouraged to innovate, leadership goes beyond decision ‐mak ‐ ing and ac ti vely shapes the condi ti ons necessary for learning and growth. 3.4.2 Crea ti vity and Idea Genera ti on In the second iden ti fied cluster, Crea ti vity and Idea Genera ti on, we categorized 69 ar ti cles by ana ‐ lyzing their abstracts, focusing on studies examining the role of shared and servant leadership in this area. Crea ti vity is a prerequisite for innova ti on and re ‐ quires leadership that fosters commitment, ethical responsibility and par ti cipa ti ve decision ‐making. Shared and servant leadership cul ti vates trust, psy ‐ chological safety and collabora ti on and enables di ‐ verse perspec ti ves to take risks, experiment and drive change (Carson et al., 2007; Walumbwa et al., 2011). Shared leadership enhances psychological safety and knowledge sharing and empowers employees to take ownership of ideas and engage in crea ti ve problem solving (Ye, Liu, & Tan, 2022; Pearce, Wassenaar & Manz, 2014). It alleviates fear of threat and encour ‐ ages teams to ques ti on norms (Daly, 2014). Leaders who encourage ques ti oning and ini ti a ti ve, increase crea ti vity in employees (Carsten et al., 2010; DeRue, 2011). Servant leadership promotes innova ti on by emphasizing ethical leadership, trust and empower ‐ ment (Walumbwa et al., 2011). Crea ti vity in virtual teams is characterized by knowledge sharing and psychological safety (Morri ‐ son ‐Smith & Ruiz, 2019). Digital transforma ti on re ‐ quires adap ti ve leadership, with digital leaders u ti lizing technology to foster collabora ti on and inno ‐ va ti on (Cortellazzo et al., 2019). In crisis situa ti ons, shared and servant leadership improve adaptability and crea ti vity, as shown by the COVID ‐19 response (Fernandez & Shaw, 2020). Leadership e ffec ti veness Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 89 is also associated with interpersonal neural synchro ‐ niza ti on, highligh ti ng the role of deep connec ti ons in crea ti ve collabora ti on (Jiang et al., 2021). Research shows that shared and servant lead ‐ ership create dynamic, par ti cipa ti ve and innova ti ve workplaces. By fostering trust, empowerment and ethical decision ‐making, these models enable em ‐ ployees to challenge norms and develop break ‐ through ideas (Carsten et al., 2010; Morrison ‐Smith & Ruiz, 2019). Organiza ti ons that embrace these ap ‐ proaches sustain con ti nuous innova ti on and com ‐ petiti ve advantage (Walumbwa et al., 2011; Lemoine et al., 2019; DeRue, 2011). 3.4.3 Knowledge Sharing and Collabora ti on In the third iden ti fied cluster, Knowledge Sharing and Collabora ti on, we categorized 69 ar ti cles by an ‐ alyzing their abstracts, focusing on studies examining the role of shared and servant leadership in this area. Knowledge sharing and collabora ti on are fun ‐ damental to organiza ti onal learning, innova ti on and long ‐term compe titi veness ( Černe, Nerstad, Dysvik, & Škerlavaj, 2014). Leadership plays a central role in shaping environments in which knowledge is cre ‐ ated, shared and strategically deployed (Mumford et al., 2002). Shared and servant leadership, both of which promote trust, psychological safety and proac ti ve engagement promote exper ti se flows across hierarchical boundaries (Dinh et al., 2014; Fehr & Gelfand, 2012; Mihalache et al., 2014). Shared leadership distributes decision ‐making and empowers individuals to take responsibility for knowl ‐ edge crea ti on (Dinh et al., 2014). Bolden (2011) high ‐ lights that shared leadership promotes organiza ti onal learning by balancing structured authority and informal collabora ti on, ensuring that exper ti se is shared e ffec ‐ ti vely. Zhang and Parker (2019) reinforce this by linking job design to knowledge sharing outcomes, showing that employees who ac ti vely shape their role con ‐ tribute significantly to knowledge sharing. At the top management level, Mihalache et al. (2014) emphasize that shared leadership fosters or ‐ ganiza ti onal ambidexterity and balances exploratory and u ti litarian learning. Raes et al. (2011) analyze the interac ti ons between top management teams and middle managers and show that middle man ‐ agers act as knowledge brokers and translate strate ‐ gic insights into ac ti onable knowledge. Similarly, Josefy et al. (2015) argue that larger organiza ti ons need structured mechanisms for knowledge sharing to remain flexible in decision making. Servant leadership that emphasizes steward ‐ ship and community building enhances trust and collabora ti on, which are cri ti cal for knowledge shar ‐ ing (Schwarz et al., 2016). Organiza ti ons where there is a climate of forgiveness — an a tt ribute of servant leadership— ‐ are more open in communi ‐ ca ti on and knowledge sharing (Chen, Zada, Khan, & Saba, 2022; Fehr & Gelfand, 2012). Servant leadership also cul ti vates psychological empowerment and creates condi ti ons for knowl ‐ edge sharing at both individual and collec ti ve levels (Miao et al., 2014). Leaders who embrace this ap ‐ proach promote a culture of con ti nuous learning and strategic collabora ti on, which is essen ti al for sustained innova ti on (Miao et al., 2013). In high ‐ pressure environments, servant leadership mi ti ‐ gates workplace anxiety and maintains engagement and collabora ti on even during crises such as COVID ‐ 19 (Liden et al., 2008). In healthcare, servant lead ‐ ership fosters collabora ti on among care providers and improves knowledge transfer, as shown by Trastek, Hamilton, and Niles (2014). Similarly, Holt and Marques (2012) emphasize that leaders who cul ti vate empathy create psychologically safe envi ‐ ronments for open communica ti on and learning. Leadership e ffec ti veness is closely linked to knowledge sharing processes. Gardner, Cogliser, Davis & Dickens (2010) iden ti fy collabora ti ve leadership ap ‐ proaches as important drivers of organiza ti onal learn ‐ ing. Carmeli, Meitar and Weisberg (2006) further emphasize the role of self ‐leadership in fostering knowledge sharing networks and suggest that organi ‐ za ti ons should develop self ‐leadership competencies to enhance both individual and collec ti ve learning. Fehr and Gelfand (2012) present a mul ti level model of forgiveness in the workplace and argue that an organiza ti onal climate based on trust and compassion fosters collabora ti on. This aligns with Mihalache et al. (2014) who propose shared leader ‐ ship in top management teams as a driver of knowl ‐ edge sharing and innova ti on. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 90 Shared and servant leadership work synergis ti ‐ cally to break down silos and enable cross ‐func ‐ ti onal collabora ti on (Dinh et al., 2014; Mihalache et al., 2014). Whether through shared or servant lead ‐ ership, these approaches create workplaces where knowledge is freely shared, strategically deployed and con ti nuously refined. By fostering trust, ethical stewardship, and a commitment to learning, these leadership models ensure that organiza ti ons remain adaptable, innova ti ve and compe titi ve in an evolv ‐ ing knowledge ‐based landscape (Fehr & Gelfand, 2012; Raes et al., 2011; Zhang & Parker, 2019). 3.4.4 Organiza ti onal Change In the fourth iden ti fied cluster, Organiza ti onal Change, we classified 67 ar ti cles based on their ab ‐ stracts that address the impact of shared or servant leadership on organiza ti onal change. A common thread running through these stud ‐ ies is the realiza ti on that tradi ti onal, hierarchical leadership models are insu fficient for coping with modern organiza ti onal change. Instead, shared, and servant leadership models foster an environment in which change is not dictated from above, but co ‐ created through collabora ti on, trust and distributed decision ‐making (Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012; Lei ‐ thwood & Mascall, 2008). These leadership styles emphasize ethical responsibility, psychological safety and knowledge sharing and support inclusive, sustainable transforma ti on e fforts, focused on long ‐ term business success (Chen, Zada, Khan, & Saba, 2022; Imam & Zaheer, 2020). Shared leadership de ‐ centralizes decision ‐making and improves adaptabil ‐ ity and responsiveness (Avolio et al., 2009). Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) emphasize how shared responsibility strengthens professional communi ‐ ti es, while Leithwood and Mascall (2008) establish a link between shared leadership and long ‐term de ‐ velopment and improved performance. Servant leadership promotes trust and psycho ‐ logical safety and empowers employees through values ‐based leadership (Liden et al., 2014). Hoch, Bommer, Dulebohn, & Wu (2018) highlight its role in improving engagement during transforma ti on, while Hallinger and Heck (2010) establish a link be ‐ tween collabora ti ve leadership and sustained school improvement. Yammarino et al. (2005) highlight how shared leadership enables organiza ti ons to manage complexity, while Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) emphasize the role of social capital in foster ‐ ing knowledge sharing — an essen ti al principle in both servant and shared leadership. Servant lead ‐ ership ensures that change is focused on long ‐term goals through ethical guidance and vision (van Dierendonck, 2011). Fehr & Gelfand (2012) rein ‐ force this by showing how stewardship promotes or ‐ ganiza ti onal resilience. Avolio et al (2009) provide a comprehensive overview of leadership theories and show how au ‐ then ti c, shared and collec ti ve leadership drive change. Shared leadership improves team performance in or ‐ ganiza ti ons and academic se tti ngs (Carson et al., 2007; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008; Heck and Hallinger, 2010; Leithwood and Mascall, 2008). Hoch et al. (2018) compare leadership styles and find that servant lead ‐ ership is par ti cularly e ffec ti ve when it comes to man ‐ aging ethical change. Liden et al. (2008) establish a link between servant leadership and ci ti zenship behavior in organiza ti ons, while Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson (2008) show that servant lead ‐ ership promotes trust and commitment during change. Contractor, DeChurch, Carson, Carter, & Kee ‐ gan (2012) use network analysis to illustrate how shared leadership promotes adaptability. Ulti mately, the research highlights that success ‐ ful organiza ti onal change is deeply intertwined with leadership approaches that priori ti ze collabora ti on, empowerment, and adaptability. Tradi ti onal hierar ‐ chical models are not su fficient for managing mod ‐ ern change (Denis et al., 2012; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). Whether through distributed decision ‐mak ‐ ing, ethical guidance, or network ‐based leadership structures, these models positi on organiza ti ons to thrive in an increasingly complex and evolving land ‐ scape (Avolio et al., 2009; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2008). 3.4.5 Implementa ti on of Ideas In the Implementa ti on of Ideas cluster, 26 ar ti ‐ cles were categorized based on their abstracts, ex ‐ amining shared and servant leadership within this theme. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 91 Successful implementation of innovative ideas requires leadership that promotes knowl ‐ edge sharing, trust and strategic alignment. Shared and servant leadership can play a key role in turning creativity into sustainable results through collaboration, empowerment and partic ‐ ipative implementation (Yoshida et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2021). Shared leadership improves knowledge inte ‐ gration and cross ‐functional collaboration and promotes effective implementation (Von Krogh, Nonaka, & Rechsteiner, 2012). It strengthens pro ‐ ject success through team cohesion and trust (Imam & Zaheer, 2020) and promotes the team’s adaptability to new ideas (Ali, Wang, & Johnson, 2019). Power heterarchies, where leadership shifts based on expertise, improve the execution of innovation by increasing responsiveness (Aime et al., 2014). Shared leadership improves the suc ‐ cess of IT projects through knowledge sharing, co ‐ hesion and trust (Imam & Zaheer, 2020). In the hospitality industry, psychological safety and em ‐ powerment support the implementation of ideas and innovations (Karatepe, Aboramadan, & Dahleez, 2020). Servant leadership promotes trust, empower ‐ ment and psychological safety, crea ti ng the condi ‐ ti ons for e ffec ti ve implementa ti on of ideas (Yoshida et al., 2014). Trust in leadership is key to risk ‐taking and implementa ti on (Jaiswal & Dhar, 2016; Zhang et al, 2021), while self ‐e fficacy strengthens proac ‐ ti ve engagement (Yang et al., 2017). Shared and servant leadership promote col ‐ laboration, empowerment and cross ‐functional in ‐ tegration. Shared leadership promotes collective decision ‐making and adaptability, while servant leadership promotes trust, psychological safety and sustained commitment. Organizations that in ‐ tegrate these approaches, supported by knowl ‐ edge sharing structures and procedural justice, effectively translate creativity into long ‐term inno ‐ vation success (Von Krogh et al., 2012; Yoshida et al., 2014; Imam & Zaheer, 2020). By prioritizing trust, collaboration and strategic alignment, lead ‐ ers promote continuous refinement of innovation that promotes sustainable growth and competitive advantage. 3.4.6 Poten ti al challenges, limita ti ons, or unintended consequences of shared and servant leadership styles From the abstracts analyzed, most studies high ‐ light the posi ti ve impact of shared and servant lead ‐ ership on knowledge sharing, collabora ti on, crea ti vity, idea ti on and execu ti on. However, a few ar ti cles point out poten ti al challenges, limita ti ons or unintended consequences of these leadership styles. Yang et al. (2017) inves ti gate the modera ti ng ef ‐ fect of power distance on servant leadership and idea implementa ti on. Their results suggest that in cultures with high power distance, servant leader ‐ ship has a weaker e ffect on promo ti ng innova ti on. This suggests that servant leadership may not be universally e ffec ti ve and that cultural di fferences may reduce its impact on crea ti vity and knowledge sharing behavior. Josefy, Kuban, Ireland and Hi tt (2015) discuss organiza ti onal size and knowledge sharing dynam ‐ ics, highligh ti ng that larger organiza ti ons o ft en struggle with knowledge flow due to bureaucra ti c structures. This suggests that while shared leader ‐ ship is beneficial for collabora ti on, it can encounter challenges in large, hierarchical organiza ti ons where decision ‐making is tradi ti onally centralized. Imam and Zaheer (2020) emphasize the impor ‐ tance of cohesion and trust in shared leadership, but also point out that decision ‐making processes can become ine fficient if trust is lacking, or leader ‐ ship is too distributed. This suggests that shared leadership can lead to slower implementa ti on and decision paralysis in some organiza ti onal contexts. Fehr and Gelfand (2012) introduce the concept of forgiveness in the workplace and restora ti ve jus ‐ ti ce but acknowledge that excessive forgiveness in leadership can reduce accountability and enable re ‐ peated nega ti ve behaviors. In servant leadership, which emphasizes forgiveness and interpersonal ac ‐ ceptance, this could mean lower performance ex ‐ pecta ti ons or leniency towards underperformance. Cortellazzo, Bruni and Zampieri (2019) examine digital leadership and point out that leaders need to strike a balance between shared leadership and structured authority. They argue that in digitally transformed workplaces, over ‐reliance on par ti cipa ‐ Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 92 ti ve decision ‐making can lead to ine fficiencies and that leaders need to strike a balance between col ‐ labora ti on and decisive ac ti on. None of these studies reject shared leadership or servant leadership outright, but they point to lim ‐ ita ti ons, contextual factors and poten ti al drawbacks that should be considered when applying these leadership models. 4 DISCUSSION Research shows that shared leadership is a cat ‐ alyst for team collabora ti on, decentralized decision making and adap ti ve problem solving (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides, et al., 2014). In innova ti on ‐ driven environments, shared leadership fosters cross‐func ti onal collabora ti on and knowledge shar ‐ ing, which are essen ti al for breakthrough innova ti on and sustained competiti veness (Wu, Chen, & Cormi ‐ can, 2024). Organiza ti ons that prac ti ce shared lead ‐ ership may benefit from collec ti ve intelligence that enables teams to respond dynamically to new chal ‐ lenges (Von Krogh et al., 2012). The literature on servant leadership empha ‐ sizes its role in promo ti ng psychological safety, eth ‐ ical decision ‐making and sustainable business prac ti ces (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011; Eva et al., 2019). Organiza ti ons with a strong servant leadership culture o ft en demonstrate higher levels of trust, employee engagement and long ‐term in ‐ nova ti on (Eva et al., 2019). The conceptual overlap between shared lead ‐ ership and servant leadership points to emerging hybrid leadership models that combine par ti cipa ti ve decision ‐making with ethical and value ‐orientated leadership (Wang, Kim, & Kim, 2021; Burton, Peachey, & Wells, 2017). While shared leadership promotes decentralized control and collec ti ve ac ‐ ti on (Carson et al., 2007), servant leadership pro ‐ motes that innova ti on e fforts are aligned with long ‐term societal and ethical considera ti ons (Eva et al., 2019). Both shared leadership and servant leadership emphasize empowerment, collabora ti on and decen ‐ tralized authority, albeit with di fferent emphases. Shared leadership focuses on team dynamics and promotes a distributed approach in which leadership tasks are shared collec ti vely among team members (Pearce & Conger, 2002; Hoch, 2013). In contrast, servant leadership emphasizes the individual growth and well ‐being of employees, with leaders adop ti ng a service ‐oriented a tti tude that promotes trust and mo ti va ti on (Greenleaf, 1977; Eva et al., 2019). While these leadership models di ffer in their approach, they have complementary characteris ti cs that create synergies in promo ti ng innova ti on. A fundamental synergy lies in their shared em ‐ phasis on psychological safety and trust. Servant leaders who priori ti ze the needs of their employees and create a suppor ti ve environment foster high lev ‐ els of trust (Liden et al., 2008). Similarly, shared leadership fosters team cohesion and mutual ac ‐ countability and promotes decision ‐making pro ‐ cesses that are inclusive and adap ti ve to change (Carson et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2014). The inter ‐ play of these elements creates an op ti mal environ ‐ ment for crea ti vity, knowledge sharing and experimenta ti on, all of which are essen ti al for inno ‐ va ti on (Zhu, Liao, Yam, & Johnson, 2018; Yoshida et al., 2014). Another important compara ti ve finding is how each leadership style influences mo ti va ti on and en ‐ gagement. Servant leadership fosters intrinsic mo ‐ ti va ti on by aligning leadership prac ti ces with employees’ personal and professional development (van Dierendonck, 2011; Neubert et al., 2016). This approach is associated with higher job sa ti sfac ti on and engagement, which indirectly supports a cul ‐ ture of sustainable innova ti on (Sousa & van Dieren ‐ donck, 2017; Jaiswal & Dhar, 2017). Shared leadership, on the other hand, increases extrinsic mo ti va ti on by promo ti ng collec ti ve accountability and suppor ti ng distributed exper ti se in decision ‐ making (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014). By integra ti ng both approaches, organiza ‐ ti ons can simultaneously increase individual mo ti ‐ va ti on and collec ti ve team e ffec ti veness and thus further drive innova ti on. The role of communica ti on and collabora ti on also demonstrates a synergy between the two lead ‐ ership models. Shared leadership thrives on the con ti nuous exchange of knowledge and enables teams to adapt quickly to challenges (Ensley et al., Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 93 2006; Hoch & Dulebohn, 2013). Servant leadership reinforces open communica ti on and inclusivity through its emphasis on empathy and ac ti ve listen ‐ ing and fosters a sense of belonging and engage ‐ ment (Eva et al., 2019; Chiniara & Bentein, 2016). This dual impact creates an ecosystem in which both team ‐driven and leader ‐facilitated collabora ti on im ‐ proves problem solving and innova ti on outcomes (Zada et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Servant leadership fosters a suppor ti ve, trust ‐ based culture that encourages experimenta ti on, risk ‐taking and the development of new ideas (van Dierendonck, 2011). The combina ti on of the peo ‐ ple ‐centered approach of servant leadership and the collec ti ve decision ‐making of shared leadership provides a holis ti c strategy to foster innova ti on in di fferent organiza ti onal contexts. Despite the synergies between shared and ser ‐ vant leadership, their integra ti on poses certain chal ‐ lenges. Shared leadership, which thrives on distributed influence, can lead to role ambiguity and coordina ti on di fficul ti es if not carefully structured (Day et al., 2004; Small & Rentsch, 2011). Without clear processes for accountability, teams may strug ‐ gle with decision ‐making, par ti cularly in complex or rapidly changing environments. At the same ti me, while servant leadership fosters a suppor ti ve and trust ‐based culture, it may not always be suited for high ‐pressure, compe titi ve se tti ngs where decisive ‐ ness and asser ti veness are essen ti al (Canavesi & Minelli, 2022). These dynamics raise important con ‐ sidera ti ons about how organiza ti ons can harness the strengths of both leadership models while mi ti ‐ ga ti ng their limita ti ons. Both shared and servant leadership contribute to innova ti on by enhancing team collabora ti on, psy ‐ chological safety, and mo ti va ti on. Their intersec ti on o ffers an opportunity to create leadership models that are both empowering and ethically grounded. The way these leadership styles influence di fferent stages of the innova ti on process—from idea ti on to commercializa ti on—remains a cri ti cal point of dis ‐ cussion (Sousa & van Dierendonck, 2017; Wang et al., 2014). Understanding how they interact in shap ‐ ing decision ‐making, knowledge ‐sharing, and prob ‐ lem ‐solving can provide insight into their broader impact on organiza ti onal success. This conversa ti on is par ti cularly relevant in en ‐ vironments characterized by uncertainty, where agility and ethical responsibility should coexist. The ability to balance decentralized collabora ti on with ethical leadership may prove essen ti al in determin ‐ ing how organiza ti ons navigate business transforma ‐ ti on and long ‐term compe titi veness (Eva et al., 2019). As leadership con ti nues to evolve alongside technological advancements, the interplay between influence, structure, and values will remain central to discussions on fostering sustainable innova ti on. 4.1 Theore ti cal contribu ti ons This study advances leadership theory by bringing together new insights from organiza ti onal behavior, psychology and innova ti on management. The analysis of co ‐cita ti on and co ‐word analysis indicate an ongoing development in leadership research that is moving away from individual ‐centered models towards more distributed, ethical and innova ti on ‐oriented ap ‐ proaches. Our findings highlight a paradigm shi ft in leadership thinking moving from tradi ti onal hierarchi ‐ cal models to shared and servant leadership that em ‐ phasize collabora ti on, empowerment and distributed authority (Dinh et al., 2014; Imam & Zaheer, 2020). Models of shared and servant leadership supported by mo ti va ti onal theories appear to play an important role in improving team e ffec ti veness and knowledge shar ‐ ing dynamics (Chen, Zada, Khan, & Saba, 2022; Imam & Zaheer, 2020). By posi ti oning leadership as a rela ‐ ti onal process, shared leadership and servant leader ‐ ship challenge tradi ti onal top ‐down structures and foster an environment in which collec ti ve decision ‐ making and mutual accountability improve team e ffec ‐ ti veness (Wang et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2020). Furthermore, we highlight the cri ti cal intersecti on of ethics and innova ti on in leadership e ffec ti veness and show how values ‐led governance strategies, cen ‐ tral to servant leadership, improve decision ‐making and promote sustainable organiza ti onal growth (Fehr & Gelfand, 2012; Christensen et al., 2015; Eva et al., 2019). The findings highlight the increasing importance of technology and collabora ti on in modern leadership and emphasize the need for an adap ti ve and respon ‐ sive leadership style (Wu et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2019). In an era increasingly defined by digital transforma ti on, our analysis highlights the need for leaders to cul ti vate Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 94 virtual leadership, agile decision ‐making, and robust knowledge ‐sharing mechanisms and underscores how shared and servant leadership can guide organiza ti ons through complex and dynamic work environments (Morrison ‐Smith & Ruiz, 2019). By integra ti ng these dimensions, this study con ‐ tributes to a more holis ti c understanding of leadership that emphasizes shared authority, ethical stewardship, and psychological empowerment, all core tenets of shared and servant leadership. These insights provide a strategic framework for developing resilient, high ‐ performing teams capable of suppor ti ng long ‐term in ‐ nova ti on and agility in evolving organiza ti onal landscapes (Wu et al., 2020; Holt & Marques, 2012). Through bibliographic coupling analysis, this study highlights three primary contribu ti ons: the role of shared leadership in team collabora ti on, the im ‐ pact of servant leadership on ethical organiza ti onal behavior, and the emergence of hybrid leadership models in innova ti on policy. This study advances the understanding of shared leadership by highligh ti ng its role in team ‐based collabora ti on and decentral ‐ ized decision ‐making (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nico ‐ laides et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2020). The findings show that the shi ft from hierarchical to distributed leadership structures promotes innova ‐ ti on, agility and knowledge sharing, especially in knowledge‐intensive industries where collec ti ve ex ‐ per ti se and cross ‐func ti onal collabora ti on are essen ‐ ti al for competiti ve advantage. This research extends the theore ti cal founda ‐ ti on of servant leadership by emphasizing its influ ‐ ence on ethical leadership, psychological safety and sustainability of innova ti on (Liden et al., 2008; Van How does the contribu ti on … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribu ti on (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? CONTRIBUTION (theore ti cally, not just prac ti cally) Advance/ progress Leadership and Team Collabora ti on Shared and servant leadership shi ft leadership from hierarchical models to collabora ti ve, empowerment ‐ focused approaches. Dinh et al. (2014), Imam & Zaheer (2020) Moderate Redefines leadership as a collec ti ve, par ti cipatory process that fosters stronger team dynamics and mutual accountability. Advance/ progress Ethical Leadership, Innova ti on Management Servant leadership aligns governance with values ‐driven innova ti on strategies, ensuring ethical and sustainable decision ‐making. Fehr & Gelfand (2012), Christensen et al. (2015), Eva et al. (2019); Mallen Broch, Dominguez Escrig, & Lapiedra Alcami (2020). Moderate Expands leadership theory by embedding ethical stewardship into innova ti on, promo ti ng responsible and sustainable leadership prac ti ces. Advance/ progress Digital Leadership, Virtual Work In a digital landscape, servant and shared leadership support virtual collabora ti on, agile decision ‐making, and knowledge sharing. Morrison ‐Smith & Ruiz (2019); Chen et al., 2022; Imam & Zaheer (2020). Moderate Advances leadership research by addressing how digital transforma ti on requires leaders to be more adap ti ve, inclusive, and responsive. Advance/ progress Leadership Development, Organiza ti onal Psychology By fostering distributed authority, ethical leadership, and psychological empowerment, servant leadership helps teams thrive in dynamic environments. Wu et al. (2020); Holt & Marques (2012) Moderate Enhances leadership theory by demonstra ti ng how empowerment ‐based leadership increases team resilience, innova ti on, and long ‐term success. Table 5: Framing Theore ti cal Contribu ti ons Using the AC/DC Posi ti oning Grid through co ‐cita ti on and co ‐ word analysis Source: The AC/DC posi ti oning grid for framing theore ti cal contribu ti ons ( Černe, 2021) Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 95 Dierendonck, 2011). By fostering trust ‐based cul ‐ tures and priori ti zing values ‐driven innova ti on, ser ‐ vant leadership endorses innova ti on processes that are aligned with ethical decision ‐making and long ‐ term sustainability. This study emphasizes the impor ‐ tance of embedding servant leadership in strategic frameworks, par ti cularly in industries where ethical considera ti ons shape innova ti on prac ti ce. This study contributes to the development of hybrid leadership models by integra ti ng principles of shared and servant leadership to create context ‐ sensi ti ve leadership approaches for innova ti on ‐ driven organiza ti ons. These models strike a balance between decentralized authority and ethical lead ‐ ership and provide a governance framework that supports stakeholder trust, collabora ti on and sus ‐ tainable innova ti on ecosystems. 4.2 Current Trends and Future Research Direc ti ons in Shared and Servant Leadership Our findings emphasize the interdisciplinary and evolving nature of shared and servant leadership stud ‐ ies and show how leadership extends beyond tradi ‐ ti onal hierarchical models to collabora ti ve, ethical and innova ti on ‐driven approaches. As organiza ti ons in ‐ creasingly operate in complex, knowledge ‐based envi ‐ ronments, leadership frameworks should adapt to technological advances, workforce diversity and chang ‐ ing employee expecta ti ons. The increasing complexity of work environments coupled with rapid technological advancement highlights the need to examine how these leadership styles drive knowledge crea ti on and organiza ti onal agility (Wu et al., 2020; Eva et al., 2019). 4.3 Prac ti cal implica ti ons The prac ti cal contribu ti ons of research on shared and servant leadership o ffer ac ti onable insights for organiza ti ons, policy makers and innova ti on leaders. Shared leadership improves team collabora ti on, agility and decentralized decision ‐making and en ‐ ables cross ‐func ti onal teams to respond dynamically to innova ti on challenges by leveraging collec ti ve in ‐ telligence and distributed authority (D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Nicolaides et al., 2014). Organiza ti ons can introduce co ‐leadership structures and par ti cipa ti ve decision ‐making systems to improve adaptability, es ‐ Table 6: Framing Theore ti cal Contribu ti ons Using the AC/DC Posi ti oning Grid through bibliographic coupling analysis Source: The AC/DC posi ti oning grid for framing theore ti cal contribu ti ons ( Černe, 2021) How does the contribu ti on … Which field? Which discussion? By which authors? Scope of the contribu ti on (small, moderate, large) Why is it relevant? CONTRIBUTION (theore ti cally, not just prac ti cally) Advance/ progress Leadership and Team Collabora ti on Shared leadership as a driver of team collabora ti on and decentralized decision ‐making. D’Innocenzo et al., (2016), Nicolaides et al. (2014), Lee (2020), Wang et al. (2014); Wu et al. (2020) Moderate Demonstrates how shared leadership enhances innova ti on, agility, and knowledge ‐sharing in dynamic environments. Advance/ progress Servant Leadership and Organiza ti onal Behavior The role of servant leadership in fostering ethical leadership, psychological safety, and innova ti on. Liden et al. (2008), Van Dierendonck (2011), Eva et al. (2019) Moderate Explores how servant leadership fosters ethical governance, stakeholder engagement, and long ‐term innova ti on sustainability. Advance/ progress Hybrid Leadership Models in Innova ti on Policy The emerging hybrid models integra ti ng shared and servant leadership for innova ti on ‐ driven organiza ti ons. Eva et al. (2019); Canavesi & Minelli (2022). Moderate Inves ti gates the balance between decentralized leadership and ethical governance in knowledge‐intensive industries. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis 96 Main Theme: Shared Leadership as a Driver of Innova ti on and Agility Key Fields for Future Research Authors Focus of Future Research Role of shared leadership in accelera ti ng the commercializa ti on of new ideas Zhu et al. (2018) Exploring how shared leadership can accelerate the process of bringing new ideas to market Main Theme: Servant Leadership and Ethical Innova ti on Cultures Key Fields for Future Research Authors Focus of Future Research Influence of servant leadership on corporate social responsibility, and ethical governance Eva et al. (2019); Tanno & Banner (2018) Inves ti ga ti ng how servant leadership principles influence ethical business prac ti ces Role of servant leadership in fostering inclusive, diverse, and psychologically safe innova ti on environments Eva et al. (2019); Wang, Kang & Choi (2022) Studying the role of servant leadership in fostering diversity and psychological safety in innova ti on teams Main Theme: The Intersec ti on of Shared and Servant Leadership: Hybrid Approaches to Innova ti on Key Fields for Future Research Authors Focus of Future Research Influence of hybrid leadership models on di fferent stages of the innova ti on process Zhu et al. (2023);Yoshida et al, 2014 Assessing how hybrid leadership models impact di fferent innova ti on process stages, from idea ti on to commercializa ti on Role of psychological safety and trust in shared and servant leadership to foster innova ti on Liden et al. (2008); Carson et al. (2007); Wang et al. (2014) Studying how trust ‐building elements in leadership contribute to an innova ti ve work environment Compara ti ve impact of shared and servant leadership on mo ti va ti on and engagement van Dierendonck (2011); Ruiz ‐Palomino, & Zoghbi ‐ Manrique ‐de‐Lara, P . (2020); Al ‐Asadi et al. (2019); Grille, Schulte, & Kau ffeld (2015) Comparing how di fferent leadership styles influence intrinsic and extrinsic mo ti va ti on Role of communica ti on and collabora ti on in enhancing innova ti on outcomes through shared and servant leadership Ensley et al. (2006); Hoch & Dulebohn (2013); Chiniara & Bentein (2016) Understanding how e ffec ti ve communica ti on in leadership enhances collabora ti on and innova ti on outcomes Main Theme: The Role of Leadership in Business Transforma ti on Key Fields for Future Research Authors Focus of Future Research Understanding leadership’s role in shaping digital transforma ti on strategies Cortellazzo et al. (2019). Inves ti ga ti ng how leadership styles impact the adop ti on and success of digital transforma ti on ini ti a ti ves The intersec ti on of leadership and organiza ti onal learning in transforma ti on contexts Van Dierendonck & Sousa (2017) Assessing how leadership fosters con ti nuous learning and adaptability during business transforma ti on Main Theme: Challenges in Integra ti ng Shared and Servant Leadership Key Fields for Future Research Authors Focus of Future Research Role ambiguity and coordina ti on di fficul ti es in shared leadership Day et al., 2004;Small & Rentsch (2011); Panaccio, et al. (2015). Inves ti ga ti ng how organiza ti ons can mi ti gate role ambiguity and improve coordina ti on in shared leadership models Challenges of servant leadership in compe titi ve environments Canavesi & Minelli, (2022) Exploring the limita ti ons of servant leadership in fast ‐ paced, compe titi ve contexts where asser ti veness is required Balancing the strengths and limita ti ons of shared and servant leadership Zhu et al. (2023) Reninforcing the need for empirical research on combining shared leadership structures to enhance innova ti on. Table 7: Future research direc ti ons in shared and servant leadership, classified within five main themes Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 97 pecially in digital and hybrid work environments where leadership is distributed across virtual teams. Meanwhile, servant leadership promotes ethical gov ‐ ernance, employee wellbeing and long ‐term sustain ‐ ability, forming the basis for corporate social responsibility, stakeholder trust and values ‐led inno ‐ va ti on (Liden et al., 2008; Van Dierendonck, 2011). In knowledge ‐intensive industries, hybrid models that integrate shared and servant leadership can bal ‐ ance decentralized authority and ethical oversight and foster collabora ti ve innova ti on that is aligned with the values of the company and society (Eva et al., 2019). In addi ti on, shared and servant leadership can play an important role in shaping innova ti on policy, influenc ‐ ing regulatory decisions, interdisciplinary collabora ‐ ti on and knowledge sharing in research ins ti tu ti ons and public administra ti on (Nguyen, Nguyen, & Tuan, 2023). Policy makers can introduce leadership ‐focused frameworks to foster ethical and inclusive innova ti on ecosystems, while universi ti es and corporate training programs should focus on developing leadership skills tailored to a dynamic, high ‐stakes environment. Taken together, these implica ti ons demonstrate how shared, and servant leadership enable and promote organiza ‐ ti onal agility, ethical innova ti on and poli ti cal e ffec ti ve ‐ ness, ensuring that leadership strategies remain collabora ti ve, empowering and ethically grounded in an evolving global landscape. 5 CONCLUSION The integra ti on of shared and servant leader ‐ ship represents a transforma ti ve opportunity to fos ‐ ter innova ti on and build resilient, high ‐performing organiza ti ons. Shared leadership fosters crea ti vity and team collabora ti on, especially in decentralized environments, while servant leadership promotes trust, an ethical culture and long ‐term commitment. Their complementary strengths — collec ti ve prob ‐ lem solving and individual empowerment — create a leadership model that is both dynamic and sustain ‐ able. Despite these synergies, careful implementa ‐ ti on is essen ti al. As shared leadership relies on distributed influence, clear coordina ti on mecha ‐ nisms are required, while servant leadership needs to be adapted to a fast ‐paced environment where decisiveness is required. By balancing these ele ‐ ments, organiza ti ons can realize the full poten ti al of both approaches. Understanding how these leader ‐ ship styles influence the di fferent stages of the inno ‐ va ti on process — from idea ti on to implementa ti on — will provide deeper insights into their role in shap ‐ ing business success. Integra ti ng shared and servant leadership into innova ti on frameworks o ffers a pow ‐ erful way to manage complexity while fostering col ‐ labora ti on, trust and purposeful growth. EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK Ta študija preu čuje stič iš če deljenega in služabniškega vodenja pri spodbujanju inova ti vnos ti z uporabo bibliometri čnih tehnik z analizo 434 znanstvenih objav. Z uporabo analiz so ‐ci ti ranja, sopojavljanja besed in bibliografske povezanos ti študija opredeljuje raziskovalne trende, tematske grozde in vrzeli v literaturi. Rezulta ti kažejo, da imata deljeno in služabniško vodenje pomemben vpliv na inovacijski proces, vendar sta njuni vlogi še vedno premalo raziskani in razdrobljeni. Študija prispeva k teoriji vodenja s poudarkom na vlogi deljenega vodenja pri ti mskem sodelovanju in decentraliziranem odlo čanju, obenem pa nadgra ‐ juje teoretič ne temelje služabniškega vodenja v kontekstu etič nega vodenja, psihološke varnos ti in tra ‐ jnostne inova ti vnos ti . Z integracijo obeh modelov prispevamo k razvoju hibridnih pristopov vodenja, ki spodbujajo kulturo, utemeljeno na zaupanju, ter kontekstualno prilagojene strategije za organizacije, us ‐ merjene v inovacije. Poleg tega raziskujemo, kako prehod od hierarhi čnega k deljenemu in služabniškemu vodenju spodbuja agilnost, izmenjavo znanja in inova ti vnost – zlas ti v panogah, ki temeljijo na znanju in se opirajo na medfunkcijsko sodelovanje. Prihodnje raziskave bi se morale osredoto či ti na deljeno in služabniško vodenje v vseh fazah inovacijskega procesa, zlas ti v poznejših fazah, da bi naslovile nejasnost vlog in zagotovile usklajenost med na ljudeh temelje čim vodenjem ter strateškimi zahtevami inovacij. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 98 REFERENCES Aime, F., Humphrey, S. E., DeRue, D. S., & Paul, J. B. (2014). The riddle of heterarchy: Power transi ti ons in cross ‐func ti onal teams. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 327–352. Al ‐Asadi, R., Muhammed, S., Abidi, O., & Dzenopoljac, V. (2019). Impact of servant leadership on intrinsic and extrinsic job sa ti sfac ti on. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 40(4), 472–484. Ali, M., Wang, W., & Johnson, R. E. (2019). Empirical ex ‐ amina ti on of servant leadership and workplace out ‐ comes: The role of trust in leader. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 40(4), 434–446. Alrowwad, A. A., Abualoush, S. H., & Masa’deh, R. E. (2020). Innova ti on and intellectual capital as intermediary vari ‐ ables among transforma ti onal leadership, transac ti onal leadership, and organiza ti onal performance. Journal of Management Development, 39(2), 196–222. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Crea ti vity in context: Update to “The social psychology of crea ti vity.” Westview Press. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R ‐tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T . J. (2009). Lead ‐ ership: Current theories, research, and future direc ‐ ti ons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. Barbuto, J. E., Jr ., & Wheeler , D. W . (2006). Scale development and construct clarifica ti on of servant leadership. Group & Organiza ti on Management, 31(3), 300–326. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and develop ‐ ment in transforma ti onal leadership. European Journal of Work and Organiza ti onal Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transforma ti onal lead ‐ ership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press. Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organiza ti ons: A review of theory and research. Interna ti onal Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269. Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Informa ti on Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255. Bunjak, A., Bruch, H., & Černe, M. (2022). Context is key: The joint roles of transforma ti onal and shared lead ‐ ership and management innova ti on in predic ti ng em ‐ ployee IT innova ti on adop ti on. Interna ti onal Journal of Informa ti on Management, 66, 102516. Burton, L. J., Peachey, J. W ., & Wells, J. E. (2017). The role of servant leadership in developing an ethical climate in sport organiza ti ons. Journal of Sport Management, 31(3), 229–240. Callon, M., Cour ti al, J. P ., Turner, W . A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From transla ti ons to problema ti c networks: An intro ‐ duc ti on to co ‐word analysis. Social Science Informa ‐ ti on, 22(2), 191–235. Canavesi, A., & Minelli, E. (2022). Servant leadership: A systema tic literature review and network analysis. Employee Responsibili ti es and Rights Journal, 34(3), 267–289. Carmeli, A., Meitar, R., & Weisberg, J. (2006). Self ‐lead ‐ ership skills and innova ti ve behavior at work. Interna ‐ ti onal Journal of Manpower, 27(1), 75–90. Carmeli, A., Reiter ‐Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in crea ti ve tasks in the workplace: The media ti ng role of psychological safety. Crea ti vity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P . E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An inves ti ga ti on of antecedent condi ti ons and performance. Academy of Manage ‐ ment Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234. Carsten, M. K., Uhl ‐Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructs of fol ‐ lowership: A qualita ti ve study. The Leadership Quar ‐ terly, 21(3), 543–562. Černe, M. (2021). Framing theore ti cal contribu ti ons: The AC/DC posi ti oning grid. Dynamic Rela ti onships Man ‐ agement Journal, 10(2), 1–5. Černe, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dysvik, A., & Škerlavaj, M. (2014). What goes around comes around: Knowledge hiding, perceived mo ti va ti onal climate, and crea ti v ‐ ity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 172–192. Chen, C. (2016). CiteSpace: A prac ti cal guide for mapping scien ti fic literature (pp. 41–44). Nova Science Pub ‐ lishers. Chen, M., Zada, M., Khan, J., & Saba, N. U. (2022). How does servant leadership influence crea ti vity? Enhanc ‐ ing employee crea ti vity via crea ti ve process engage ‐ ment and knowledge sharing. Fron ti ers in Psychology, 13, 947092. Chiniara, M., & Bentein, K. (2016). Linking servant lead ‐ ership to individual performance: Di fferen ti a ti ng the media ti ng role of autonomy, competence, and relat ‐ edness need sa ti sfac ti on. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 124–141. Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disrup ti ve innova ti on? Harvard Business Re ‐ view, 92(12), 44–53. Cobo, M. J., López ‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera ‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping so ft ware tools: Review, analysis, and coopera ti ve study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Informa ti on Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. Contractor, N. S., DeChurch, L. A., Carson, J., Carter, D. R., & Keegan, B. (2012). The topology of collec ti ve lead ‐ ership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 994–1011. Cortellazzo, L., Bruni, E., & Zampieri, R. (2019). The role of leadership in a digitalized world: A review. Fron ti ers in Psychology, 10, 1938. Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 99 D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta ‐analysis of di fferent forms of shared leadership–team performance rela ti ons. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991. Daly, H. E. (2014). Beyond growth: The economics of sus ‐ tainable development. Beacon Press. Day, D. V ., Gronn, P ., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880. De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta ‐analysis of main ef ‐ fects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1134–1150. Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V . (2012). Leadership in the plural. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 211–283. DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adap ti ve leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adap ti ve process. Re ‐ search in Organiza ti onal Behavior, 31, 125–150. Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theore ti cal trends and changing perspec ti ves. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36–62. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W . M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Re ‐ search, 133, 285–296. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organiza ti on: Cre ‐ a ti ng psychological safety in the workplace for learn ‐ ing, innova ti on, and growth. Wiley. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of ver ti cal and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implica ti ons for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quar ‐ terly, 17(3), 217–231. Eva, N., Robin, M., Sendjaya, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Liden, R. C. (2019). Servant leadership: A systema ti c review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). The forgiving organiza ti on: A mul ti level model of forgiveness at work. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 664–688. Fernandez, A. A., & Shaw, G. P . (2020). Academic leadership in a ti me of crisis: The coronavirus and COVID ‐19. Jour ‐ nal of Leadership Studies, 14(1), 39–45. Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leader ‐ ship. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P . (2010). Authen ti c leadership: A review of the liter ‐ ature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), 1120–1145. Glänzel, W., & Czerwon, H. J. (1996). A new methodolog ‐ ical approach to bibliographic coupling and its appli ‐ ca ti on to the na ti onal, regional and ins ti tu ti onal level. Scientometrics, 37(2), 195–221. Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legi ti mate power and greatness. Paulist Press. Grille, A., Schulte, E. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). Promot ‐ ing shared leadership: A multilevel analysis investi ‐ gating the role of prototypical team leader behavior, psychological empowerment, and fair rewards. Jour ‐ nal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 324–339. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collabora ti ve leader ‐ ship and school improvement: Understanding the im ‐ pact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. Hannah, S. T., Sumanth, J. J., Lester, P., & Cavarre tt a, F. (2014). Debunking the false dichotomy of leadership idealism and pragma ti sm: Cri ti cal evalua ti on and sup ‐ port of newer genre leadership theories. Journal of Organiza ti onal Behavior, 35(5), 598–621. Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2010). Tes ti ng a longitudinal model of distributed leadership e ffects on school im ‐ provement. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(5), 867–885. Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innova ti on: The role of ver ti cal leadership and employee integrity. Jour ‐ nal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159–174. Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2013). Shared leadership in enterprise resource planning and human resource management system implementa ti on. Human Re ‐ source Management Review, 23(1), 114–125. Hoch, J. E., & Dulebohn, J. H. (2017). Team personality composi ti on, emergent leadership and shared leader ‐ ship in virtual teams: A theore ti cal framework. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 678–693. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H., & Wu, D. (2018). Do ethical, authen ti c, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transforma ti onal leadership? A meta ‐analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in leadership: Ap ‐ propriate or misplaced? An empirical study on a topic that is asking for a tt en ti on. Journal of Business Ethics, 105, 95–105. Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transforma ti onal lead ‐ ership, innova ti on climate, crea ti ve self ‐e fficacy and employee crea ti vity: A mul ti level study. Interna ti onal Journal of Hospitality Management, 51, 30–41. Jaiswal, N. K., & Dhar, R. L. (2017). The influence of servant leadership, trust in leader and thriving on employee crea ti vity. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 38(1), 2–21. Jiang, K., Hu, J., Hong, Y ., Liao, H., & Liu, S. (2016). The im ‐ pact of service climate and ethical climate on business performance outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 13961. Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, May 2025 100 Josefy, M., Kuban, S., Ireland, R. D., & Hi tt , M. A. (2015). All things great and small: Organiza ti onal size, boundaries of the firm, and a changing environment. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 715–802. Karatepe, O. M., Aboramadan, M., & Dahleez, K. A. (2020). Does climate for crea ti vity mediate the impact of servant leadership on management innova ti on and innova ti ve behavior in the hotel industry? Interna ‐ ti onal Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Manage ‐ ment, 32(8), 2497–2517. Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between sci ‐ en ti fic papers. American Documenta ti on, 14(1), 10–25. Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delega ti on: Shared, hierarchical, and dein ‐ dividualized leadership in extreme ac ti on teams. Ad ‐ ministra ti ve Science Quarterly, 51(4), 590–621. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the lit ‐ erature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40(1), 226–255. Krog, C. L., & Govender, K. (2015). The rela ti onship be ‐ tween servant leadership and employee empower ‐ ment, commitment, trust and innova ti ve behaviour: A project management perspec ti ve. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–12. Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y ., & Rabe ti no, R. (2023). Digital dis ‐ rup ti on of op ti mal co ‐innova ti on configura ti ons. Tech ‐ nova ti on, 125, 102772. Lambert, R. A. (2012). Financial repor ti ng and corporate governance. Wiley. Lee, D. S., Lee, K. C., & Seo, Y . W . (2015). An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team crea ti vity in an e ‐learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 42, 47–56. Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta ‐analy ti c examina ti on of incremental contribu ti on, modera ti on, and media ‐ ti on. Journal of Occupa ti onal and Organiza ti onal Psy ‐ chology, 93(1), 1–44. Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collec ti ve leadership e ffects on student achievement. Educa ti onal Admin ‐ istra ti on Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. Lemoine, G. J., Hartnell, C. A., & Leroy, H. (2019). Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership: An integra ti ve review of ethical, authen ti c, and servant leadership. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 148–187. Leydesdor ff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an in ‐ dicator of the interdisciplinarity of scien ti fic journals. Journal of the American Society for Informa ‐ ti on Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of Man ‐ agement Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a mul ti dimen ‐ sional measure and multi‐ level assessment. The Lead ‐ ership Quarterly, 19(2), 161–177. Mallen Broch, F. F., Dominguez Escrig, E., Chiva Gomez, R., & Lapiedra Alcami, R. (2020). Promo ti ng firm in ‐ nova ti veness through servant leadership and corpo ‐ rate social responsibility to employees. Leadership & Organiza ti on Development Journal, 41(4), 615–633. Meuser, J. D., Gardner, W. L., Dinh, J. E., Hu, J., Liden, R. C., & Lord, R. G. (2016). A network analysis of leader ‐ ship theory: The infancy of integra ti on. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1374–1403. Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. I. N. (2014). Servant leadership, trust, and the organiza ti onal com ‐ mitment of public sector employees in China. Public Administra ti on, 92(3), 727–743. Miao, Q., Newman, A., Yu, J., & Xu, L. (2013). The rela ‐ ti onship between ethical leadership and unethical pro ‐organiza ti onal behavior: Linear or curvilinear ef ‐ fects? Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 641–653. Mihalache, O. R., Jansen, J. J. P ., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2014). Top management team shared leadership and organiza ti onal ambidexterity: A moderated media ti on framework. Strategic En ‐ trepreneurship Journal, 8(2), 128–148. Moed, H. F. (2006). Cita ti on analysis in research evalua ‐ ti on (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media. Moral ‐Muñoz, J. A., Herrera ‐Viedma, E., San ti steban ‐Es ‐ pejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). So ft ware tools for con ‐ duc ti ng bibliometric analysis in science: An up ‐to ‐date review. Profesional de la Información, 29(1), e290103. Bojana Markovska Klepec, Miha Škerlavaj: Exploring the Synergy: The Role of Shared and Servant Leadership in the Innova ti on Process Through Bibliometric Analysis