Articles / Should Leadership Be a Shared Process? The Case for Distributed Leadership
Leadership StylesExplore whether leadership should be shared. Learn about shared leadership benefits, challenges, and when distributed leadership approaches work best.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Wed 5th November 2025
Should leadership be a shared process? Research increasingly suggests yes—in many contexts, shared leadership produces better outcomes than traditional hierarchical approaches. Studies from the Center for Creative Leadership indicate that teams with shared leadership demonstrate 34% higher performance, 30% greater innovation, and 22% improved member satisfaction compared to traditionally led teams. Yet shared leadership isn't appropriate for every situation, and implementing it effectively requires understanding both its potential and its limitations.
This guide explores when leadership should be shared, how to implement shared leadership effectively, and what conditions enable distributed leadership to succeed.
Shared leadership is a dynamic process where leadership responsibilities are distributed among team members rather than concentrated in a single designated leader. In shared leadership, multiple individuals exercise influence based on their expertise, perspective, or situational requirements.
Key characteristics of shared leadership:
Distributed influence: Leadership functions spread across team members. No single person holds all leadership responsibility.
Dynamic rotation: Leadership may shift based on task requirements, expertise relevance, or situational demands.
Collective responsibility: Team members share accountability for outcomes. Leadership success is the team's success.
Mutual influence: Members influence each other laterally rather than through hierarchical authority.
Emergent process: Shared leadership often emerges from team interactions rather than being formally assigned.
Context-dependent: Different situations may call forth different leadership contributions from different members.
| Dimension | Traditional Leadership | Shared Leadership |
|---|---|---|
| Influence source | Single leader | Multiple members |
| Authority basis | Position | Expertise, situation |
| Direction flow | Top-down | Multi-directional |
| Accountability | Leader | Collective |
| Flexibility | Limited | High |
Traditional hierarchical leadership places leadership responsibility in designated individuals. Shared leadership distributes that responsibility across team members.
Traditional leadership:
Shared leadership:
Neither approach is inherently superior. Effectiveness depends on context, task requirements, and team characteristics.
Research identifies multiple benefits of shared leadership:
Enhanced performance: Teams with shared leadership often outperform traditionally led teams, particularly on complex tasks requiring diverse expertise.
Increased innovation: Multiple leadership perspectives generate more ideas and creative solutions. Diverse viewpoints spark innovation.
Better decision quality: More input into decisions improves decision quality. Collective wisdom often exceeds individual judgment.
Greater engagement: Team members feel more invested when sharing leadership responsibility. Engagement improves when people have meaningful influence.
Development opportunities: Shared leadership develops leadership capabilities across team members. More people gain leadership experience.
Resilience: Teams aren't dependent on single leaders. Shared leadership creates redundancy and continuity.
Expertise utilisation: Leadership can shift to whoever has relevant expertise for specific challenges.
Reduced burnout: Leadership burden spreads across multiple people. No single person carries full weight.
Research consistently supports shared leadership effectiveness:
Team performance studies: Meta-analyses show positive relationships between shared leadership and team effectiveness across various contexts.
Innovation research: Studies demonstrate stronger innovation outcomes in teams with distributed leadership compared to hierarchical structures.
Healthcare settings: Research in clinical teams shows improved patient outcomes and team coordination with shared leadership approaches.
Knowledge work: Complex knowledge work benefits particularly from shared leadership leveraging diverse expertise.
Virtual teams: Distributed teams often function better with shared leadership given challenges of remote hierarchical coordination.
| Research Area | Finding | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Team performance | 34% higher effectiveness | Shared leadership improves outcomes |
| Innovation | 30% more innovation | Multiple perspectives spark creativity |
| Member satisfaction | 22% higher satisfaction | Shared responsibility increases engagement |
| Complex tasks | Better performance | Distributed expertise valuable |
| Virtual teams | Improved coordination | Hierarchy harder remotely |
Shared leadership works best when:
Tasks are complex: Complex challenges benefit from multiple perspectives and diverse expertise. Simple tasks may not require distributed leadership.
Expertise is distributed: When relevant knowledge exists across team members, shared leadership accesses that expertise more effectively.
Team members are capable: Shared leadership requires members with sufficient capability to contribute meaningfully to leadership.
Interdependence is high: When team members must coordinate closely, shared leadership facilitates integration.
Innovation is valued: When creativity and diverse thinking matter, shared leadership generates more ideas.
Environment is dynamic: Rapidly changing conditions benefit from flexible leadership that adapts quickly.
Trust exists: Shared leadership requires trust among team members. Low trust undermines distributed approaches.
Culture supports it: Organisational culture must value collaborative approaches. Hierarchical cultures resist shared leadership.
Traditional leadership may work better when:
Speed is essential: Crisis situations requiring rapid decisions may benefit from clear single-leader authority.
Tasks are routine: Simple, well-defined tasks may not require distributed leadership complexity.
Expertise is concentrated: When one person clearly has relevant expertise, centralised leadership makes sense.
Accountability must be clear: Some situations require unambiguous individual accountability that shared leadership complicates.
Team capability is limited: Inexperienced or low-capability teams may need more directed leadership.
Conflict is high: Severe team conflict may require authoritative leadership to manage.
Stakes are existential: Survival situations may require decisive hierarchical leadership.
Deciding between shared and traditional leadership involves assessing:
1. Task characteristics:
2. Team characteristics:
3. Contextual factors:
4. Desired outcomes:
Enabling shared leadership requires:
Build team capability: Ensure team members have skills to contribute to leadership. Develop capabilities where gaps exist.
Establish trust: Create psychological safety enabling members to share leadership. Trust must be cultivated deliberately.
Clarify expectations: Communicate that shared leadership is expected and valued. Ambiguity undermines distributed approaches.
Provide development: Offer learning opportunities helping members develop leadership capabilities.
Model shared leadership: Demonstrate shared leadership behaviours. Actions communicate expectations more than words.
Create supporting structures: Design processes and systems facilitating shared leadership. Structure should enable, not hinder.
Address resistance: Some members may resist sharing leadership. Address concerns constructively.
Reward appropriately: Recognise and reward effective shared leadership. Incentives shape behaviour.
Even with shared leadership, roles often emerge:
Designated coordinator: Someone may coordinate shared leadership without directing it. Coordination differs from control.
Expertise contributors: Members lead when their expertise is relevant. Leadership rotates based on knowledge.
Process facilitators: Some members may facilitate decision processes while others contribute content.
External liaisons: Certain members may lead interactions with external stakeholders.
Mentors and developers: Experienced members may lead development of others' capabilities.
Initiators: Some members may take initiative in identifying needs and proposing actions.
These roles may be explicit or emergent, fixed or rotating, depending on team context.
Common shared leadership challenges include:
Coordination complexity: Multiple leaders require coordination. Without it, chaos results.
Accountability diffusion: Shared responsibility may become no responsibility. Accountability must remain clear.
Decision speed: Collaborative decisions take longer. Urgency requires adaptation.
Status threats: Some may feel threatened by shared leadership. Status concerns need addressing.
Skill gaps: Not all members may have leadership capability. Development is necessary.
Free riding: Some may let others carry leadership burden. Mutual accountability prevents this.
Conflict: Multiple leaders may conflict. Conflict resolution processes are essential.
| Challenge | Risk | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Coordination | Chaos | Clear processes |
| Accountability | Diffusion | Explicit responsibility |
| Speed | Slow decisions | Urgency protocols |
| Status | Resistance | Address concerns |
| Skills | Capability gaps | Development |
| Free riding | Unequal burden | Accountability |
| Conflict | Leadership disputes | Resolution processes |
Different models for distributing leadership:
Rotating leadership: Leadership responsibility rotates among team members on scheduled basis.
Situation-based leadership: Leadership shifts based on situational requirements. Different situations call forth different leaders.
Expertise-based leadership: Whoever has relevant expertise leads on specific issues. Knowledge determines influence.
Collective leadership: Team decides together through collaborative processes. No single leader on any issue.
Complementary leadership: Different members lead different aspects based on strengths. Leadership divides by domain.
Emergent leadership: Leadership emerges organically from team interactions without formal structure.
Model selection depends on:
Task predictability: Predictable tasks allow planned rotation; variable tasks need emergent approaches.
Expertise distribution: Expertise concentration suggests expertise-based models; dispersed expertise enables broader distribution.
Team maturity: Mature teams handle emergent leadership; developing teams need more structure.
Cultural fit: Models must fit organisational culture. Misalignment creates conflict.
Outcome priorities: Innovation priorities suggest broader distribution; efficiency priorities may favour focused models.
Even with shared leadership, individual leadership contributions remain valuable:
Coordination role: Someone often needs to coordinate distributed leadership activities.
External representation: Organisations may require identifiable individual leaders for external purposes.
Accountability clarity: Some decisions may need clear individual accountability.
Crisis response: Urgent situations may require single-leader decisiveness.
Development focus: Individual leaders may mentor team members' leadership development.
Effective approaches combine individual and shared leadership:
Vertical leadership enabling horizontal: Designated leaders create conditions for shared leadership to flourish. Vertical leaders serve horizontal processes.
Domain differentiation: Individual leadership applies to some domains; shared leadership to others.
Phase-based approaches: Some project phases may use individual leadership; others use shared approaches.
Backup systems: Shared leadership operates normally; individual leadership activates when needed.
Hybrid models: Individual leaders set direction while teams share execution leadership.
Shared leadership is a dynamic process where leadership responsibilities distribute among team members rather than concentrating in a single designated leader. Multiple individuals exercise influence based on expertise, perspective, or situational requirements. Leadership may rotate or shift based on task demands. Shared leadership produces collective accountability for outcomes.
Shared leadership effectiveness stems from: accessing diverse expertise and perspectives, generating more ideas and innovation, improving decision quality through multiple inputs, increasing member engagement through meaningful influence, developing leadership capabilities across team members, creating resilience through distributed responsibility, and matching leadership to situational requirements.
Leadership should be shared when: tasks are complex requiring diverse expertise, knowledge is distributed across team members, team members have capability to contribute, high interdependence requires coordination, innovation and creativity are valued, environment is dynamic requiring adaptability, and trust exists among team members. Traditional leadership may be more appropriate for simple tasks, crisis situations, or low-capability teams.
Shared leadership challenges include: coordination complexity requiring explicit processes, accountability diffusion risking unclear responsibility, slower decision-making in collaborative processes, status concerns from those preferring hierarchy, skill gaps limiting some members' contributions, potential free riding where some carry disproportionate burden, and conflict among multiple leaders requiring resolution mechanisms.
Shared and individual leadership can effectively coexist. Designated leaders may coordinate shared leadership, represent teams externally, and provide crisis response capability while enabling distributed leadership for most activities. Hybrid models differentiate domains or phases where each approach applies. Vertical leadership can serve and enable horizontal leadership processes.
Implement shared leadership by: building team member capabilities, establishing trust and psychological safety, clarifying expectations that shared leadership is valued, providing development opportunities, modelling shared leadership behaviours, creating supporting structures and processes, addressing resistance constructively, and rewarding effective shared leadership contributions.
Shared leadership requires capabilities including: collaboration and influencing without authority, effective communication and listening, conflict resolution and negotiation, self-awareness about when to lead and follow, emotional intelligence for reading team dynamics, accountability and initiative taking, and adaptability to shifting roles. These skills can be developed through training and experience.
Should leadership be a shared process? The answer is: often yes, but not always. Shared leadership produces significant benefits—enhanced performance, greater innovation, improved engagement, and broader development—particularly for complex tasks requiring diverse expertise in trusting, capable teams.
Yet shared leadership isn't universally appropriate. Simple tasks, crisis situations, concentrated expertise, and low team capability may benefit from traditional hierarchical approaches. The question isn't whether shared leadership is better but when it's appropriate.
Effective organisations develop capability for both approaches, choosing based on context. They create conditions enabling shared leadership while maintaining capacity for decisive individual leadership when situations require it.
Assess your context. Develop both capabilities. Apply the right approach for each situation.
Share leadership deliberately. Lead individually when needed. Match approach to context for best outcomes.