Shared leadership? Can it work? And what does it even mean? In today's article, we delve into the wonderful world beyond, let's say, the ‘top-down single leader’ approach. There is a lot to discover here, because ‘shared leadership’ comes in many varieties: plural leadership*, dual leadership, collective leadership, distributed leadership, co-leadership and, of course, shared leadership. We clear up common misconceptions, as these terms are often used interchangeably. By the end of the article, you will know when it is worth implementing shared leadership in your company.
* We use plural leadership as an umbrella term for shared leadership models.
Definition of plural leadership
Plural Leadership bezieht sich auf ein kollaboratives Führungskonzept, bei dem Führungsverantwortung auf mehrere Personen verteilt wird. Es geht darum, dass mehrere Personen gemeinsam an Entscheidungsprozessen beteiligt sind, anstatt dass eine einzelne Person die Führung übernimmt. Plural Leadership bedeutet nicht, dass die Verantwortung oder Autorität der einzelnen Führungskraft vermindert wird. Stattdessen wird die Verantwortung auf mehrere Personen ausgeweitet. Dieses Modell fördert eine kollektive Verantwortung und sorgt dafür, dass mehr Perspektiven und Kompetenzen in den Führungsprozess eingebunden werden, ohne die Verantwortung einzelner Führungskräfte zu mindern.
Plural leadership models
Dual Leadership
In this case, there are two executives at the same level whose areas of responsibility do not overlap. This means that they share leadership in separate areas of responsibility, but remain hierarchically equal.
Example: In a technology company, the CTO (Chief Technology Officer) and the CFO (Chief Financial Officer) jointly manage the company, with the CTO being responsible for the technical aspects and the CFO for the finances.
Co-Leadership
These are situations in which two people share the exact same management position and bear joint responsibility, often without a clear division of tasks. One example would be a dual board of directors, in which both members make all decisions together.
Example: Two managing directors run a start-up as co-CEOs and make all important strategic decisions together, without a clear division of tasks.
Distributed Leadership
Leadership is distributed among several team members who take on leadership roles depending on their skills and the situation. Responsibility is spread across all participants.
Example: In an agile software development team, various members such as the product owner, scrum master and developers take on leadership tasks in turn, depending on the respective project phase.
Shared Leadership
Similar to distributed leadership, but with a stronger focus on collaboration and coordination. Leadership changes dynamically based on the needs and abilities of the team members, with leadership tasks being shared flexibly.
Example: In a project team in an advertising agency, a different member takes the lead depending on their expertise – e.g. for creative conception, customer communication or technical implementation.
To clarify the difference between distributed and shared leadership:
While distributed leadership focuses more on the conscious distribution of leadership roles within a structured environment, shared leadership emphasises the dynamic and collective exercise of leadership by all team members without formal role distribution.
Now that we have clarified the terminology, we turn to the question: ‘Why shared leadership at all?’ The short answer in advance: future readiness.
When does shared leadership make sense?
We are in a state of constant change and transformation. Whether it's digital transformation, HR transformation or demographic change, our VUCA world keeps us on our toes. And then long-standing management models and hierarchies no longer work.
Shared leadership is particularly useful when flexible and dynamic working conditions prevail and a high degree of collaboration is required. It is well suited for organisations that operate in complex, rapidly changing environments, such as the technology industry or agile teams. Since digitalisation has turned every company into a ‘software company’, shared leadership is useful in almost every industry because it increases flexibility and resilience.
Furthermore, this model promotes innovation and faster decision-making by drawing on a range of expertise. Not only that, but it also strengthens employee motivation and self-responsibility, especially in flat hierarchies. Indeed emphasises that trust and cooperation are crucial in shared leadership in order to effectively share responsibilities, which leads to greater satisfaction and efficiency. It is also ideal for teams that rely on flat hierarchies and prefer collective leadership decisions to promote creativity and flexibility.
In summary: shared leadership is ideal for dynamic, cooperative environments in which team members can contribute different strengths and take on collective responsibility.
Requirements for shared leadership
To ensure that shared leadership can work successfully, a number of basic requirements must be met:
1. A foundation of trust: It is essential that team members have a high degree of trust in each other in order to effectively share leadership responsibilities. Without trust, decisions and responsibilities cannot be transferred smoothly.
2. Clear communication: Open and regular communication is crucial to ensure that everyone on the team is aware of responsibilities and role distribution.
3. Clear role definitions: Even if leadership responsibility is shared, the tasks and roles must be clearly defined to avoid conflicts and misunderstandings.
4. Cultural suitability: Organisations with flat hierarchies and a cooperative culture are ideal for shared leadership. In such environments, teams can work independently and take responsibility.
5. Complementary skills: Team members should have different but complementary skills so that they can take on leadership roles flexibly depending on their expertise.
How can shared leadership be successfully implemented in practice?
Successful implementation of shared leadership requires a clear focus at both the team and individual level. Trust is the basic prerequisite: each team member must be able to trust that the others will competently take on their responsibilities. At the same time, open communication is essential to clearly distribute tasks and avoid misunderstandings.
Of course, individual behaviour plays a major role. Everyone in the team must be willing to take responsibility and make decisions. Equally important is the ability to relinquish leadership when others are better suited. This willingness to both lead and follow requires a high degree of self-awareness and self-reflection. Not everyone has this, so skills must be evaluated beforehand.
To ensure that shared leadership is successful at the organisational level, the corporate culture must support this model. It requires flat hierarchies and structures that promote autonomy and collaboration. Flexible working, as enabled by job sharing or home office, also supports the model, as the example of the Lufthansa Group (next chapter) makes clear.
It is also important to continuously evaluate shared leadership. Teams should regularly reflect on how well the model is working (or not) and where there is room for improvement. This iterative adjustment ensures that the team remains flexible and constantly optimises its way of working.
Overall, shared leadership requires a high degree of acceptance from each individual, combined with a supportive corporate culture and a systematic approach to reflecting on and developing leadership structures.
Best practice example: shared leadership at the Lufthansa Group
The Lufthansa Group shows how shared leadership can be effectively implemented – in this case, particularly in connection with promoting the work-life balance of its employees. The company offers a working environment in which leadership is not the sole responsibility of one person, but rather tasks and responsibilities are shared among several executives. This enables more flexible working structures and more efficient collaboration – ideal for an international and diverse company like Lufthansa.
Particularly noteworthy is how the Lufthansa Group combines these approaches with modern working practices such as home office and mobile working. These flexible working models offer executives the opportunity to work independently of location, without any loss of productivity or effectiveness.
And in doing so, Lufthansa is fostering a corporate culture in which employees are not only more motivated in their work, but are also given more freedom to balance their personal and professional commitments. This is an example of how a flexible management structure can be successfully implemented in a large international company.
Conclusion
Shared leadership is particularly effective in dynamic, complex environments that require flexibility and rapid decision-making. It is ideal for companies that want to promote agile working methods or strong teamwork. Organisations with flat hierarchies are optimal candidates for shared leadership, but this is not a deal breaker. If your company is characterised by multidisciplinary teams and a collaborative culture, shared leadership will help foster innovation and resilience.
.png)
