In our modern world, more possibilities are opening up every day in favor of organizations that are more horizontal than vertical, with teams of leaders instead of bosses. Let's examine the advantages and disadvantages of participatory leadership.
What is participatory leadership?
As is evident from its name, the participatory leadership it is one in which all the members of a project are given the ability to propose and decide together. Although there is nominally a specific leader, he assumes a role closer to that of coordinator of all team members.
If in the traditional format the boss decided on his own, based on his intuition, interest and experience, in the participatory leadership Deliberation is more collegial, with a full debate of ideas and questions by the entire company, until a decision is reached by consensus majority.
The official leader also participates in the debate as one more and is left with the responsibility of communicating the decisions abroad and gradually developing the objective conditions for their implementation.
Advantages
Among the advantages that we can associate with this type of leadership, we can first mention the issue of and motivation. It is reasonable to expect that team members will move more enthusiastically toward goals if they have been involved in both setting the goals and the method of achieving them.
Additionally, knowing that one's own opinion has a specific weight and will be considered, fills the individual's work with meaning, quite unlike the old structure with distant and unquestionable authorities.
Second, constant contact between people through discussion establishes closer and more empathic relationships. The perspectives are considered from the perspective of human closeness and the emotional bond is strengthened, giving rise to a system of true union and solidarity. Something also far from the classic order of closed cubicles.
Finally, an important advantage lies in the diversity of ideas. By pure statistical probability, it is much more common for viable solutions to be found together (and in friction with other proposals) than alone. The careful questioning of an idea produces more efficient results and with fewer errors than the simple obedience to a laboratory line dictated from above.
Disadvantages
On the side of the disadvantages, we must first mention what refers to the intimidation.
Even setting aside the aggressive figure of the single boss, there will still be a natural variety of characters among team members, which will give rise to an unofficial hierarchy led by the most assertive. In the field of free debate, the withdrawn often have the upper hand, even though they are sometimes the most creative.
Without a figure to act as a strong facilitator and create separate channels of communication if necessary, the company can become a litany of forceful voices, egging on one another and reducing the rest to silence.
This obviously leads us to the second inconvenience that can arise in this system: the personal conflict. Multiple team members may be unable to stand up for their ideas without hurting others, something that could have gone under the table in a single authority format.
So, what was presented as an objective exposition of possibilities ends up as a long-lasting hostility that accompanies those involved in each group encounter. This, of course, can undermine the overall performance and slow everything down. Smoothing out the rough edges in an environment of maximum and more frequent contact, of daily debate, can be quite arduous. The prudential and momentary distance to heal wounds may not be a possibility.
The third point against can be summed up in the word dispersion. It is more than likely that several members of the group will cling to their preferred proposals and find it difficult to accept the consensus created around another. Then, if there are no strong personalities exercising moderation, there can be a general disbandment or a false commitment to the winning idea that translates into labor apathy.
As can be seen, a horizontal work order still requires certain authority figures who exercise good ascendancy over the group in order to achieve a peaceful disposition and some unanimity. For this reason, we end by inviting you to watch the following short and animated video that describes the characteristics of a good participative leader.
If you have enjoyed this article on participative leadership, you may be interested in this other one on our website on the most effective leadership strategies. Follow the link!