A study by Professor Pia Popal from Munich found that 62% of employees see the need for more authoritarian leadership. Strong leadership, one person who can do and knows everything – does this mean that shared leadership has to take a back seat in times as crisis-ridden as these? Not at all, as Thomas and Randolf show in the latest issue of Changement.
For Randolf and Thomas, shared leadership refers to all forms of leadership that are shared between several people. This includes co-leadership, collective leadership, but also self-organisation without formal managers.
Leadership is therefore no longer something that depends exclusively on one person and their leadership position.
Tasks are shared and distributed in tandem or in teams. The advantages are obvious: the strengths and networks of all those involved are added together and responsibility rests not on one but on many shoulders. This also increases resilience in the management system.
But what happens when a crisis hits?
A practical example of shared leadership par excellence is Viisi, a property financing consultancy in Amsterdam. The company consists of teams in which four different management roles rotate. The idea is that everyone is encouraged to try out a leadership role.
When the war of aggression in Ukraine led to turmoil on the property market and the consultancy had to cut staff, even this crisis situation did not throw the people of Amsterdam off track. They stuck to their concept and got through the difficult times with transparency, solidarity, joint decision-making and taking responsibility. And they did so without an authoritarian manager who took a tough top-down approach.
Nevertheless, shared leadership is neither a sure-fire success nor a patent remedy. Every team and every organisation is different, and each individual case requires a flexible adaptation of the model.
