Distributed leadership: when the power to decide becomes collective

In many organizations today, a gap is increasingly evident: leaders carry the vision, managers hold the structure, but in between, the energy for action sometimes struggles to flow. Teams are asking for more autonomy, meaning, and trust, while leadership seeks to maintain coherence and performance.
This paradox isn’t about willingness — it’s about the leadership model itself.

The traditional model, centered on a small group of decision-makers, has long ensured stability. But faced with growing complexity, rapid change, and the rise of collective expertise, it becomes too rigid, too slow, too dependent on a central point that can no longer see or decide everything.

In this context, a new form of leadership is emerging: distributed leadership, or how to make leadership a shared responsibility rather than a privileged position. The idea is no longer to concentrate power at the top, but to let the capacity to act circulate everywhere it is needed.

This shift isn’t merely organizational — it reshapes the very way we work together. It encourages us to see leadership as a collective dynamic, a movement where everyone can, at their own level, take initiative, influence what happens, and contribute to shared success.

But what is distributed leadership?

This model is emerging in many organizations, from start-ups to large corporations. But before exploring the conditions for success, we first need to clarify what we really mean by “distributed leadership.”

Distributed leadership is not about “getting rid of managers.”
It’s a way of operating in which leadership is shared among several people, at different levels of the organization.

Practically speaking, it means that anyone - depending on their expertise and their role at a given moment can:

• Take initiative
• Influence decisions
• Contribute to strategy

Without having to wait for approval from a superior.

It’s a leadership model that works as a network rather than a pyramid one that connects people instead of stacking them.

Researchers at MIT and McKinsey refer to this as an “agentic organization” or an “ecosystem of leaders”: a structure where value emerges from the collaboration between individual and collective intelligence.

What recent studies say (2024–2025)

The findings are clear: distributed leadership can become a powerful lever… or an organizational trap. It all depends on the conditions in which it is implemented. According to research and practical experience (OECD, MIT, McKinsey, European universities), the following factors make the difference:

When implemented well, distributed leadership becomes a lever for performance and engagement.

• Teams are more responsive and motivated because they know they truly have the power to act.

• Decisions are made closer to the field, resulting in greater meaning and speed.

• Innovation increases, as ideas no longer have to travel through a single channel.

But if poorly prepared, it can quickly become a source of chaos:

• Too many “mini-leaders” without coordination = loss of coherence.

• Vague roles, shared responsibilities without a framework = stress and inertia.

• Some people feel excluded from decision-making, while others are overburdened.

In short

Distributed leadership works when the structure supports trust, and fails when the structure merely delegates without alignment.

The conditions for successful distributed leadership

Even if these conditions provide a structured playing field, the actors still need to accept playing differently. Distributed leadership doesn’t just transform structures — it transforms roles.

Implementing distributed leadership isn’t simply about saying, “everyone can be a leader.” It’s a shift in posture and system that requires careful preparation. Organizations that succeed in this evolution share five essential conditions, spanning structural, cultural, and human dimensions.

1. Clarity of roles and responsibilities

Distributed leadership doesn’t mean “more rules,” but better rules.

Each person needs to know:

• What they can decide on their own

• What must be co-decided

• When to consult or inform others

This clarity prevents confusion, strengthens trust, and makes it easier to take initiative. It’s often this explicit framework that gives employees the confidence to act without fear.

Example: A product team jointly defines a “decision matrix” (who decides / who contributes / who is informed). This simple tool frees up initiative while maintaining collective coherence.

2. Regular coordination spaces

When leadership is shared, coordination becomes vital. Without it, everyone moves down their own path, and the organization loses alignment.

Successful structures establish synchronization spaces:

• Cross-functional meetings

• Communities of practice

• Decision-sharing forums

• Monthly “reviews” where local leaders exchange lessons learned

These moments help maintain coherence without hierarchy. They become the backbone of collective leadership.

Example: Some companies adopt a monthly “leadership circle,” where managers, experts, and key contributors share decisions, obstacles, and insights in a spirit of transparency and learning.

3. A culture of trust and accountability

No distributed leadership can exist without mutual trust. Trust replaces constant control: it allows delegation, experimentation, and correction.

But trust alone isn’t enough: it must be accompanied by a strong sense of individual and collective accountability. Each member becomes responsible not only for their own actions but also for the group’s overall dynamics.

Example: A leadership team that allows its employees to test new approaches, provided they document results and collectively draw lessons, establishes a genuine culture of responsible trust.

5. A culture of continuous learning

Distributed leadership is based on the idea that the organization learns by doing. There is no perfect model, only constant adjustments. Mistakes, far from being punished, become opportunities for collective learning.

Organizations that cultivate this mindset progress faster because they turn failures into knowledge and tensions into opportunities for growth.

Example: After each project, a team holds a “learning debrief” to identify what worked well, what didn’t, and how to adjust their decision-making process next time.

In short

Distributed leadership doesn’t rely on individual goodwill, but on an ecosystem that makes cooperation natural and legitimate.

It’s a balance between autonomy and alignment, trust and accountability, structure and freedom. And it is precisely within this balance that leadership becomes agile, human, and sustainable.

In a distributed leadership model, the coach becomes a central actor in the transformation. Not because they provide ready-made answers, but because they create the conditions for the collective to find its own solutions.

The coach acts as a mirror, a catalyst, and a revealer. They help teams, managers, and leadership see what is really at play: the tensions between autonomy and alignment, between power and accountability, between stated trust and experienced trust.

One of the coach’s primary roles is to help the system see its own dynamics. In a distributed organization, leadership sometimes circulates implicitly or informally. The coach helps map this flow of decision-making power: Who influences? Where are decisions being made? What slows things down? What creates flow?

These insights are essential because they often reveal invisible knots: areas of uncertainty, poorly defined roles, or habits inherited from hierarchical cultures. Making them visible is already the beginning of transformation.

Example: In a project team, the coach notices that strategic decisions are actually made by two key people, but never formalized. By helping the team recognize and own this reality, the coach restores clarity and trust.

Once these dynamics are made visible, the coach acts as a facilitator of alignment. They help clarify roles, responsibilities, and interactions. They support the implementation of collective rituals: synchronization meetings, learning reviews, decision-making circles, feedback sessions.

The coach enables the shift from a logic of control to a logic of tooled trust: trust is not naive; it relies on explicit frameworks and concrete practices.

Example: During a leadership team coaching, the coach introduces a “Who decides what?” ritual to clarify each person’s areas of autonomy. Within a few weeks, overlaps disappear, communication becomes smoother, and the collective posture becomes more confident.

Beyond teams, the coach plays a role in systemic transformation. They help organizations reconfigure their culture: shifting from centralized power to shared power, from control to trust, from compliance to continuous learning.

This requires time and perseverance. But this is precisely what coaches excel at: creating spaces where people can speak freely, fears can be named, and everyone regains their ability to act.

Distributed leadership is not just a method. It is a shift in collective consciousness, and the coach is its quiet guardian.

In short

The coach helps the organization see itself differently, clarify what it wants to embody, and experiment with new ways of collaborating.

In a system where leadership becomes distributed, the coach is no longer a peripheral supporter: they are a facilitator of meaning, connection, and collective maturity.

They are the one who helps transform an intention into a living dynamic, and a dynamic into a sustainable culture.

In conclusion: Sharing leadership means sharing responsibility for the future