What have we Learned from the Era of Distributed Leadership?

The idea of shared leadership has always been around in some form or another in the nonprofit space for years. However, nonprofit co-leadership across the entire sector gained popularity as a concept 5-10 years ago, and we continue to see some organizations choose this format today. Since its heyday conversation around whether it’s a worthwhile concept seems to have faded somewhat into the backdrop behind other more pressing nonprofit topics like decreasing philanthropy funding, diversity, pay transparency, and unionization. And yet, because “distributed leadership” is such a vague term we can’t say organizations are altogether done with it these days because it can mean different things to different organizations in different circumstances.
​
Let’s look at where it’s still being used and why, as well as who is most likely to embrace it!

---

​Shared Leadership’s New (and not so new) Uses
In some organizations there are natural dividing lines that make shared leadership more feasible – like an arts institution where one leader manages the artistic direction of the organization while the other manages the business-side. But for most organizations, this kind of clear dividing line doesn’t really exist. Often, having one person at the top of the hierarchy is preferred by board members and the rest of the leadership team. For these reasons, it seems to be more popular in theory these days than it is in practice.

However, some people are still exploring new leadership structures and hierarchies in response to the “great resignation” as a potential way to ensure continuity of leadership. We have also seen instances where individuals who are in a succession pipeline for the ED or CEO role are reluctant to take on a job solo that can feel overwhelming, lonely, and even impossible at times. The appeal of shared leadership is that it divides the leadership load among multiple people to avoid burning out any one person (and to offer stability if/when a leader leaves).

The goal with utilizing a co-leadership model is typically to:

• Share power equally across multiple capable leaders.
• Encourage a diversity of perspective in strategic decision-making.
• Set an example for collaboration and unity.
• Flatten the organizational structure to promote equality.
• Enable the organization’s leadership to better support its staff.
• Support succession planning by pairing a more experienced leader with a newer leader.

​A case study in shared leadership from the Hewlett Foundation summarizes it in this way,

Distributing leadership in an organization brings more people to the table to contribute to and make decisions. The more an organization distributes leadership, the more ideas can inform the ways it allocates resources, experiments with programs, and determines its strategic direction. Bringing more people and possibilities into decisions can lead an organization in unknown and therefore riskier directions, more often for the better, but sometimes for the worse. The collective responsibility that individuals feel when an organization distributes decision-making processes and power motivates them to do their part to ensure the best possible outcome. Further, should a decision go awry, more people—rather than a sole decision maker—absorb the fallout from subsequent ripple effects.

Although less common, it can also be used as a way to gradually hand over power from an outgoing ED that is a veteran in the role, to help the organization find its direction under new leadership.

Love It or Hate It
Regardless of the motivation behind using it, there is often a significant divide in how distributed leadership is perceived internally. Typically, staff are excited by shared leadership because it provides them with more access to top leadership and more equitable distribution of decision making and boards can struggle with it because it means they need to manage two or three people instead of just one, which is far more difficult logistically. Further, boards become the de-facto “decision maker” when leaders in shared roles are not aligned on decision making.

Ultimately, the model’s success hinges, first and foremost, on the people involved because even best co-leadership model will fail without the right leaders in place to drive it. That means that regardless of which side of the fence you’re on, the outcome you’re hoping to attain cannot come to fruition without bringing in well-qualified leaders that are willing to lead together.

The Generational Gap
There is also a generational component in how distributed leadership is perceived. Experts have a variety of opinions on what kind of generational norms are contributing to the gap, but the younger workforce seems to be more willing and capable of managing successful co-leadership models than older generations.

And yet, today’s younger generations that are engaged in nonprofit careers seem to still be somewhat hesitant to take on leadership roles even if they are shared. Why? Because while distributed leadership is a way of changing the mantel of leadership, it doesn’t necessarily take away the burden of leadership.

We are seeing more and more that many younger rising nonprofit professionals are passing on leadership opportunities altogether to forgo this burden. They are content with where they are because they don’t feel like the added money and status is worth it. They realize that leading an organization requires a hefty investment of time and energy, so they’re saying no to leadership opportunities to create a better work-life balance.

Just Semantics
When looking at leadership structure versus practice, the discussion around distributed leadership may be a matter of semantics because in most organizations these days it’s less about what the structure is called and more about building authentic relationships, establishing trust, and focusing on new ways of collaborating. Ultimately, if the work is getting done and the mission is being fulfilled, it doesn’t matter what an organization calls it!

Regardless of how centralized (or decentralized) power is, today’s top nonprofit organizations are finding their success in leveraging the skills and experiences that their leaders bring to the table. Today, like every era of the past, it’s the leaders themselves that are driving success, not the systems of leadership that are in place.

When you need nonprofit leadership advice, please reach out to us. Our team of nonprofit consultants assists organizations every day with leadership transitions. We have the expertise to advise on what will be best for your organization’s specific needs. Whether you need nonprofit board advisory services, an interim nonprofit leadership solution, or nonprofit executive recruiting, we can help! Contact us to find out more today!