Letting Go of Hierarchical Leadership
BY MIKE DEGROSKY
Though it is not all that uncommon, I am still surprised when I encounter leaders of complex organizations with highly capable workforces who take a traditional, hierarchical approach to leadership. These leaders shoulder all the important responsibilities of the organization, make every decision, and then delegate and direct tasks to be implemented.
The appeal of hierarchical leadership is strong. Closely controlled operations can provide a sense of control and predictable comfort for a leader. However, in my experience, the larger and more complex the operation, the harder it is to lead this way, and the more important it becomes to distribute leadership.
Deborah Ancona, a professor in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, defines distributed leadership as “collaborative, autonomous practices managed by a network of formal and informal leaders across an organization.”
Unlike traditional, hierarchical leadership approaches, distributed leadership emphasizes sharing leadership responsibilities and authority among multiple people or teams, rather than concentrating those responsibilities in a single person or position. Distributed leadership emphasizes collective action, shared responsibility, collaboration, and empowering people to contribute to leadership consistent with their expertise and experience.
The research is clear: in our increasingly complex and turbulent world, adaptive, people-centered, participative, and distributed leadership is where the work world is headed and what large swaths of the workforce want, need, and expect. Knowing that, when I took my last position, I resolved to lead this way – to broadly distribute leadership responsibilities across my team. My experience is that successfully distributing leadership requires some conditions.
First, the team must share a common sense of mission and a shared a vision for the organization’s direction. Second, leaders within the organization must be prepared, and have the capacity to lead and be accountable for their actions when properly supported. Finally, people must be given a level of autonomy within their spheres of responsibility. Autonomy not only expresses but also requires trust, and this trust must be earned. Without high levels of mutual trust, distributed leadership proves very difficult. Once allowed autonomy, people are also understood to have accountability for their actions and results.
So, with those conditions in place, how do we distribute leadership?
First, loosen the reins, surrender responsibilities, let go, and trust people. Distributed leadership requires senior leaders to trust that others can make good decisions and contribute to the organization’s success. Let individuals manage their own work and time. This is where a shared understanding of mission and vision comes in. It is so much easier for senior leaders to let go, trust people, and allow them to work autonomously when they know that everyone is on the same page. Permit people to lead. Empower team members to take initiative, direct projects, exert their influence, and contribute by using their expertise and experience.
Be neither a delegator nor a micromanager. Conventional management theory holds that the greater the size of the operation, the more important it is to delegate to others. However, distributed leadership isn’t about just delegating tasks. Instead, empower others to step up and take responsibility without being tasked. Avoid micromanaging and resist the urge to jump in and take over. I have marveled, not in a good way, at leaders who direct every initiative and make every decision while surrounded by a deep pool of talent, sometimes representing hundreds of years of experience. Give people the freedom to use their knowledge, make informed decisions, and grow within their roles.
When tempted to jump in and take over, be a coach instead. Coaches give feedback and instruction, but also allow the people they coach to experiment, try new approaches, and make low-impact mistakes in the service of learning. As a coach, you still offer insight and ensure team members make decisions that align with the organization’s mission and vision, but the approach is more collaborative than directive. Foster a culture of continuous improvement through feedback and both individual and organizational learning.
Share information and enable all employees to contribute to decisions. Whenever possible, make decisions collectively, soliciting input from the team, limiting unilateral decisions to those that are strictly necessary.
Despite good intentions and my commitment to lead this way, I did not always find it easy. I once hired a program manager, a key position on our team, and I committed to a rock-solid onboarding process including a series of road trips to meet people and orient the new person to our very decentralized operations. As the time approached to schedule the next trip, the program manager informed me that it would be unnecessary as a trip was planned with a colleague instead. Honestly, I was a bit hurt but soon realized that I had gotten exactly what I asked for: I had challenged our program managers to take their programs by the horns, break down silos, integrate their programs, and lead. I was observing an emerging network of distributed leadership. I got over feeling left out and took the win.
Unlike traditional, hierarchical leadership approaches, distributed leadership emphasizes sharing leadership responsibilities and authority among multiple people or teams, rather than concentrating those responsibilities in a single person or position.
My experience – and the research backs me up – is that distributed leadership is good for people, good for the mission, and good for the organization, producing agile, adaptive operations, innovation, engaged employees, better service to constituents, as well as teamwork and cohesion. Share the leadership; I believe you will be glad you did.
Mike DeGrosky is a student of leadership, lifelong learner, mentor and coach, sometimes writer, and recovering fire chief. He taught for the Department of Leadership Studies at Fort Hays State University for 10 years. Follow Mike on LinkedIn.
