Perspective

Self-managing teams, is that nonsense? Or is it?

19 / 11 / 2024

Are you part of the “self-managing teams, tried it & never again” club? Or is your organization completely sold on the idea? Perhaps you’re struggling to see the forest for the trees: distributed leadership, self-managing teams, shared leadership, etc.? No worries, we’re here to help!

From conceptual chaos to “aha!”: Distributed leadership and its variants

Leadership is often defined as the process through which individuals achieve results via others (Cialdini, 2001). By this definition, successful leadership means a leader can mobilize others towards a common goal. Agree? Great, let’s continue.

Leadership is behavior—it’s not a trait, a personality characteristic, or a gender role. Leadership is shown through actions, which means it can be learned. While leadership literature historically focused on understanding the behaviors of a single leader (think transformational leadership models or the Great Man theory), over time, the idea emerged that leadership can also reside within the team, shared among multiple individuals in the organization.

After all, if leadership is about mobilizing others towards a common goal, then you, I, or anyone else can do it.

“Distributed leadership” is an umbrella term for leadership models that place the process of mutual influence within the team. This aligns with the knowledge economy in which we operate (Pearce, 2007). Leadership no longer hovers above the team but is situated wherever expertise and knowledge are centralized—within the team itself. Shared leadership and similar models fit perfectly within this framework (Carson et al., 2007).

“Shared leadership, fine. But my self-managing team? It’s a disaster.”

Interesting 😊. This is a common frustration among managers who eagerly implemented self-managing teams about a decade ago. Many came back empty-handed. While self-management seemed to work fine, issues like vacation planning often caused gridlock. Sound familiar?

That’s perfectly normal! A self-managing team is not a guarantee of shared leadership. Implementing a new organizational model (self-managing) doesn’t mean employees automatically have the tools, competencies, or even the desire or comfort to guide each other, address behaviors, and so on. Everything works smoothly—until it doesn’t. That’s when the “hierarchical” manager is called back in as a last resort.

But don’t worry, it’s not all doom and gloom.

How can this work? What are the ingredients?

With the right ingredients and in the right context, teams with shared leadership can absolutely succeed and even surpass traditional organizational models.

Context: Shared leadership models don’t work in every organization.

Maturity: Team members need a certain level of maturity to guide each other.
Sector or niche: Industries like IT and product development are better suited for these models, as agile working already incorporates a shared leadership mindset.
Organizational size: In larger teams, shared leadership can sometimes lead to confusion (“Who’s responsible?”), as continuously clarifying roles becomes less feasible.

What can I do to make shared leadership work in my organization?
The following interventions are essential:

Critical success factors: To enable peer guidance, focus on three key elements:

Voice: Team members need to feel they can express their opinions without fear of repercussions.
Clear team goal: A well-defined, shared objective (Avolio et al., 1996).
Support: Team members need to feel supported by their colleagues (Marks et al., 2001).

Interdependence: Consider the extent to which colleagues rely on each other in their work. For isolated individuals or siloed experts, there’s little reason to mobilize towards a common goal due to the lack of shared responsibility.
External leadership: And here’s where the secret lies: an external leader or coach remains crucial (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). Not only to clarify the team’s shared goal, enabling them to embrace shared leadership but also to help create a safe team environment and develop the skills and competencies needed for successful mutual guidance.

The moral of the story? Yes, shared leadership can work. Self-managing teams can succeed.
But this doesn’t negate the need for a formal “leader/manager.” Instead, we advocate for a combination of mutual guidance and a clear (external) framework that strengthens both.

Think of them as self-regulating teams: autonomous in their day-to-day operations, yet guided by a well-defined common goal.