In response to the trend toward a more dynamic hospitality business environment and rapid changes in market needs (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012), we have recognized that employee creativity and innovation are key sources of a hospitality organization’s competitive advantage that help the organization to deliver superior service quality and satisfy the customers’ diverse needs (Chang and Teng, 2017; Hon, 2012; Hon and Lui, 2016; Li and Hsu, 2016). However, employee creativity and organizational innovation are destined to stagnate without the supervisors’ positive support. Recent empirical studies have shown that leadership has been confirmed to have a significant and positive effect on employee attitudes and behaviors in a hotel workplace (Chen and Wu, 2017; Patiar and Wang, 2016; Wu and Chen, 2015). Thus, the leadership styles of hotel managers seem to have a subtle and creative influence in this competitive business context. Positive leadership from supervisors can boost morale, encourage employees to work harder for the organization and develop higher quality services (Testa and Sipe, 2012; Uen et al., 2012). In contrast, supervisors who fail to demonstrate charisma can dissipate their employees’ positive mental energies, resulting in decreased work performance. Several studies have addressed the positive correlation between the various types of leadership, including transformational, transactional, and empowering leadership, and employee psychology and behavior (Bass et al., 2003; Wu and Chen, 2015). However, the issue of how hotel leaders can motivate frontline employees – who have autonomy, a desire for self-achievement, and innovative thinking on how to encourage the employees’ creativity in the workplace – is critical to hotels in maintaining sustainable competitive advantage. According to the social exchange theory developed by Blau (1964), the social exchange process is based on the result of mutual reciprocation and trust. In addition, commitment and creativity are produced when exchange partners find a solution that results in maximum benefits for both partners. Katz and Kahn (1978) believed that when group members willingly and naturally support shared goals and influence others to do the same through shared leadership, their commitment to the organization increases, leading to enhanced organizational competitive advantages. Based on these statements, Carson et al. (2007) named this type of leadership, shared leadership. Even though a few prior studies have explored the relationship between shared leadership and its consequences, such as team performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (e.g., Carson et al., 2007; Mathieu and Kukenberger, 2016; Mathieu and Kukenberger, 2015; Hoch and Kozlowski, 2014; Hoch, 2013; Liu et al., 2014), research on shared leadership and its potential effects on behavior and performance in the hotel workplace are rare.