Many organizations still prefer the traditional model of leadership instead of a shared-leadership style that can result in a decrease in productivity and performance.
An increasing body of research shows that shared leadership is extremely effective in certain circumstances but , most importantly, only in the event that it is designed and implemented.
What Is Shared Leadership?
Shared leadership is when every employee in an organization assumes an active role in the role they play. This is because shared leadership allows every employee to do their responsibility without having to receive supervision of a manager who is command-and-control-style.
It is a horizontal model of leadership which means that employees and teams form the collective direction of the business in contrast to conventional triangle models in which the vision and direction are set by the executive suite.
But, the most important element of sharing leadership is the fact that it’s an incline. That means that shared leadership can take on many forms and forms of iteration. Here are two examples of what can be described as shared leadership.’
Example 1: No CEO
Solodev Solodev, an SAAS company, initially was able to hire the CEO, but they found that the company’s culture didn’t respond very well. Instead the responsibility and the decision-making for the CEO’s decision-making were handed over into the “Executive Committee” comprised of experts from various departments.
Experts’ opinions and the views of their peers contributed to the executive decision-making and the direction of the business. In the event of a breakdown in the decision-making process then the company’s chief executive Shawn Moore would step in.
Example 2: Voted Leadership
Are you looking for a compromise between rigid hierarchical structure and the flexibility of shared leadership is the Chinese appliance maker, Haier and their operating model: Rendanheyi.
Haier observed that a traditional top-down hierarchy approach was associated with the limitation of agility, but they required the visionary cohesion traditional leadership models come with. The outcomes of Rendanheyi’s model Rendanheyi approach, Haier found, were better communication and improved productivity.
In essence it is the Rendanheyi is based upon, among other things micro-enterprises operating as autonomous, smaller units within an overall company structure. The leadership of the tactical and operational aspects for each division is decided by the employees every year and their visionary leaders are supervised by management.
This is why it is clear that the Rendanheyi operational model can be described as traditional and shared leadership.
Traditional Leadership in contrast to. Shared Leadership
The traditional way of leadership is to be hierarchical by virtue of a triangular composition. An executive is responsible for the responsibilities and accountability of the company that subordinates later perform. In most cases, a leadership chain is further divided into more specific accountability and responsibilities, i.e., the top manager, the middle manager, and the employee.
In contrast, shared leadership spreads accountability and responsibilities to everyone in the organization that work in pooled and active teams.
In other words, instead of the executive branch being responsible for the work of employees each employee is responsible for their own schedule and work.
A thought leader of the dynamic area of shared leadership and reteaming, Robert Keidel described the activities as a baseball team in which each employee is a part of the team at their respective stations and working independently and interdependently to the same vision of the company.
This tableau below is a graphic that summarises the key distinctions.
1. Improved performance of organizations
A meta-analysis We found out that Shared leadership has been proven to be 34 percent more efficient than traditional leadership . The reason for this is because shared leadership is based on the concept of innovation and change, which has been found to have more impact on team performance when compared to traditional methods of leadership.
Furthermore, shared leadership improves team performance due to the idea of the building of trust between employees through their co-leading with the other.
2. Collaboration improved, transfer of information and ingenuous ideas
The shared leadership model promotes trust and sharing of knowledge between employees.
One study found that shared leadership was especially useful in creating the sharing of knowledge in an online work setting, i.e., decentralized and digital teams. Furthermore, knowledge sharing improves the cooperation within an organization increasing innovation, as well as employees’ growth, commitment, and participation.
3. Improved satisfaction at work and motivation
The Journal of Social Psychology published that shared leadership can lead to collaboration, consensus and overall satisfaction, which is based on the effects of collaboration.
In essence, shared leadership fosters an interaction between each employee and the overall identity of the company and the team. Furthermore, the research has found that once a sufficient connection is established, more motivation is a result.
4. Natural leaders emerge without being hired
If an organization follows the shared leadership model naturally-born leaders emerge within groups. It follows that leaders who are naturally more competent develop because they are not chosen, but are born.
The relationship between the worker and leader are also strengthened. This is because when leaders aren’t appointed but created dynamically, it enhances the team’s cohesion, interaction and overall performance. However, it can cause a problem when a natural leader’s qualities don’t emerge as a clear leader.
Challenges of Shared Leadership
1. The foundations need to be set in stone
Implementing an important change in any business requires careful planning and solid base.
- This is why it requires adequate supervision to make sure that the transition is smooth the shared leadership model which requires a sufficient level of leadership within the company no matter how ironic it might seem.
- Furthermore, effective communication and decision-making are essential to the success of an organization. If this is not done the shared leadership system will contribute to the inefficiencies.
- As with any major modification, a clear strategy and plan is required to be initiated. Achieving a common vision and plan of operation will ensure a successful implementation while making sure that there are no unexpected issues.
- The transition to a shared-leadership model will require significant initial investment and financial resources. The reason according to “Non Profit Quarterly” can be attributed to the fact that the shift from traditional leadership to shared leadership results in the need for temporary decision-making and responsibility in terms of complexity that can lead to the indirect cost of losing efficiency.
2. Senior employees might react negatively to leadership shared
The process of establishing shared leadership requires that the current management needs to transition from controlled by goals to relationships and management of conflict. This may cause tension from those who might require a change in authority , and can also be a temporary solution for shared leadership.
This is a common scenario in multigenerational family-owned businesses. The study discovered that multi-generational companies resist letting go of control and oppose shared leadership.
3. More interpersonal conflicts, longer chain of communication and decision-making
Although shared leadership is more effective and flexible over time but in the short and mid-term it may create conflict among employees, expand the decision chains, and alter the direction of the company.
4. Benefitful for the opportunity seekers
Opportunistic behavior is a drawback in any organization and an environment that has no oversight can mean that self-interested acts are more easily manipulated.
In the end, shared leadership may allow employees to be impulsive and could cause harm to the business in general.
5. Balance between work and life and burnout
When there is shared management, eliminating the manager out of the equation could impact the balance between work and life. In light of that employees who have access to flexible work arrangements have not been able to make use of them.
This could result in employees who are bosses themselves are more likely to prioritize work and increase the likelihood of burnout.
Work-life balance problems were linked to managers who are not supportive..
If a manager is emotionally and physically friendly, businesses will experience less conflict at work, better mental and physical health, and better motivation of employees.
