Participatory Leadership Models

Is delegation the panacea to all leadership ills, or the source of many of its woes? In recent months, I have become aware of the number of supposedly senior-level leadership programs positioning better delegation as THE key to effective leadership. This is rationalised by an alternative practice of authoritarian direction being deemed "bad leadership". I don't think this is useful. At all. The reason? If the work is complex, which it almost always is, then delegative leadership predicts four things. 1: Poor productivity 2: Low quality 3: Rising levels of irritation and frustration in those doing the work 4: Loss of pride and purpose in those doing the work This is not a new discovery. The experiments illustrating these phenomena were published in the 1940s. The idea that leadership relates to generating practices in which people can be effective in complex conditions goes back to 1961. Yet, delegation is the default. The impact outlined above is accentuated by some more research, which suggests that very few very senior leaders - perhaps as few as 5% - have the capacity to be clear about what is to be done, why it should be done, and how it should be done. How to solve this? Complex work requires participatory leadership, with guided facilitation and ongoing dialogues about what is being done, how it is being done, and why it is being done - which can lead to better ways of doing. Participatory leadership in complex conditions predicts four things. 1: Reasonable productivity (some people do lots, others less) 2: High quality 3: Social bonding in the team, leading to engagement 4: High pride and purpose in the work Instead of confusion and anxiety, coherence and emergence. This ensures those doing the work understand the purpose of the work and can adapt to market shifts and changes in real time. Furthermore, participative practices embedded in project work, especially a high ratio of such practices early in the project, predict low costs and early finishes. Research suggests that effective executives spend between 50-80% of their time in dialogic activity. Yet, so many executives I meet say they don't have the time to be participative, only delegatory. Partly this is the training they receive, which celebrates delegation. But it's also habitual. Participation is associated with long and arduous meetings with lots of people in which a few assertive voices dominate, everyone else is disengaged or multi-tasking, nothing gets decided, and thus nothing gets done. Done well, participation should feel like the conversation flow at a dinner party. We've experimented with this, separating teams into those delegated a complex task and those under guided participation. Even over one hour, the former produces 1/10th of the work of the latter. The former gets frustrated, while the latter laughs. This s not radical. Or difficult. We've just forgotten the things we once knew! #complexity #leadership #futureofleadership

Distributed Leadership in Turbulent Times Leadership Isn’t a Role. It’s a System. In fast-moving environments, the old model breaks down: ⛰️ One person at the top 📣 One voice calling the shots 🧍 One leader expected to know it all But today’s challenges are too big—and too complex—for hero leadership. The best organizations build systems of distributed leadership. That means: 🤝 Leadership is shared across levels and roles 📐 Decision-making is close to the action 🌱 Authority flows from insight—not just title 💬 People feel safe to contribute new ideas and take initiative Here’s how it shifts your approach: ❌ “It’s on me to have all the answers.” ✅ “It’s on us to ask better questions—together.” → Collaboration is capacity. ❌ “Let’s wait for direction.” ✅ “Who has insight—and how do we bring them in?” → Initiative beats hierarchy. ❌ “Only senior leaders can lead.” ✅ “Everyone has a part to play in moving the mission forward.” → Leadership is a network, not a ladder. So ask yourself: 🤔 Where am I holding too much—and who else should lead here? 💬 What system are we building—not just what role am I playing? #DistributedLeadership #CollaborativeLeadership #LeadershipSystems #AdaptiveOrganizations #xLEAD #LeadershipInMotion #PsychologicalSafety Spillane on distributed leadership; Ancona on X-Teams; Amy Edmondson on psychological safety

Recently I was so inspired by a conversation between Dart Lindsley and Perry Timms on our Built for People stream. Inverting the organizational design as approach in modelling servent leadership. It places leaders not at the top, but at the bottom, fundamentally shifting their role from commanding to facilitating, from dictating to empowering. 🔄 👥 In this model, leaders become enablers, actively supporting their teams. They focus on removing obstacles, providing resources, and empowering employees to make decisions. This approach is beautifully summarized by Robert Greenleaf in his concept of 'servant leadership,' which emphasizes the leader’s role as a caretaker who helps employees grow and develop. Key benefits of this inverted pyramid approach include: 🌟 Faster Decision-Making: With empowerment, decisions are made quicker and closer to the action, speeding up response times. 🌟 Better Innovation: Empowered teams are more likely to experiment and propose creative solutions. 🌟 Stronger Trust and Communication: This approach fosters a culture of trust and open communication, essential for any thriving organization. 🌟 A Less Parental, More Autonomous Culture: People are trusted to do great work, and will rise to the challenge. Ultimately most people want to be successful and autonomous, by moving leadership to a supporting role, we show people that we're expecting them to rise to fill their potential. 🔍 Want to read more? The Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership provides more insights into this philosophy. https://www.greenleaf.org/ Have you experienced this leadership model in your team? What impact did it have on team dynamics and overall performance?