Shared leadership allows more equal power to many leaders vs a trickling down of power.

There is no
hierarchy in shared leadership. It also allows for more input from many minds which can also lead to
more time consuming decision making. However in some creative lines of business, shared leadership
might be the best form. This is because it allows for a brain-think collaboration mindset, more ideas are
heard therefore more creativity is encouraged.

A great example of shared leadership comes from Orpheus Chamber Orchestra, where they do not have
a conductor. At OCO they deal with each individual musician. This is because Orpheus Chamber
Orchestra (OCO) feels that everyone is a source of inspiration and creativity.

What is important about shared leadership is to unite under a common goal, at OCO the goal is that each
musician has a voice and that voice is respected and heard. They want each musician to feel a personal
responsibility to their music and the orchestra. By making each person feel important, creativity could be
at an all time high. People feel more comfortable sharing ideas and boundaries that are set with a
hierarchy style of work are diminished.

If you are able to create unity through a goal, you might see the success of shared leadership. However
this also means there could be conflict of too many leaders trying to make final decisions.

The OCO has a solution to this, a rotating leadership. The OCO calls their leadership “The Core'' which is
made up of principal wind and string players. This allows for unity as they go into concerts. However,
each piece has a different core so everyone has a chance to be in leadership, again a great example of a
blending of vertical and shared. This is allowing some vertical leadership, some organization and then
creative thinking from a group of leaders as well.

If you use a shared leadership, the safety net of a leader catching mistakes or errors. Each person has
their own accountability to their projects. When mistakes happen frustration can build and a leader might
be beneficial to diffuse the situation.

I think it is important to keep in mind the various outcomes, good and bad, to using shared leadership.
Like I said, it isn’t going to work for all lines of business.

A situation where shared leadership would not be beneficial would be in a crisis. The Challenger Launch
for example. The teleconference in 1986 that cleared the deathly launch the next day could have used a
clear and decisive leader from the engineering firm building the rocket, Morton Thiokol. Engineers were
losing confidence in the lead engineer and growing frustrations with failing O rings on the shuttle.

These concerns were not strongly argued from a confident leader at the deciding conference. There was
clear evidence of changing temperatures damaging the crucial O ring yet when faced with the challenge
to argue the delay of the launch, the firm did not provide that evidence and the launch was given the
clear.

In this situation a clear chain of command would have been helpful, with the evidence passing through
each before the conference. As well as a creation of a presentation that is collaborated on and approved
by the lead in command.

NASA pushed for the launch due to several costly delays and pressure from their media image.
However, given the proper evidence and a strong presentation from a prepared leader that has been
developed through the different levels of the firm, I feel the board at NASA would’ve seen the dangers.
Shared leadership is appropriate in creative settings even at law firms when trying to figure out how to
tackle a case. However I do not feel that in business or medicine shared leadership would be effective, in
my
professional opinion. Companies could see malpractice, economic crashes and worse. There are just
certain places where a clear leader must be defined to ensure safety and efficiency, such as the
challenger meeting, in a surgical unit, or in a SWAT team unit for example.

When making your decision on the organizational leadership in your company, besure to take into mind
the strengths of your leaders and if it makes sense to change the leadership style. Is it worth investing in
this change? According to Strengths Based Leadership by Tom Rath and Barry Conche, 73% of
employees were more likely to engage in day to day company interests when leaders invest in specific
employee strengths, by conforming to shared leadership you could risk having employees being talked
over or not valued by their specific strengths. It is also important to know if this fits your employees’, not
the company’s, needs. There has to be a purpose to deciding your company’s organizational leadership.
Most people respond to having a leader, does your company have enough independant and creative
leaders for shared leadership to work?

Overall there are a number of factors to consider when deciding if shared leadership or a hierarchical
leadership would be best for you and your company. Factors such as time, stress, high risks, and more
will all play into your decisions. It will be best to explore all outcomes before enacting any changes.