SHARED

LEADERSHIP
Strength in Unity
INTRODUCTION
The article advocates for shared leadership over traditional top-down
structures, asserting that it is more effective for businesses.
It challenges the misconception that effective leadership relies solely on one
individual, highlighting that successful leaders are often supported by a team
of other capable leaders.
Amana Corporation is cited as an example of successful shared leadership,
having operated without a single CEO since 1995.
Amana's leadership model comprises a team of four executives, each
overseeing a different business unit, enabling the company to sustain profits
across various cyclical industries.
WHAT IS SHARED LEADERSHIP?
Shared leadership is not a new concept. There are historical examples of
shared political power, such as the two Roman “Caesars” who ruled the
declining empire.
Shared leadership can be implemented in a variety of ways. There can be co-
leaders, or a team of three or more leaders.
Shared leadership can be an effective way to address complex challenges
that require a diverse set of skills and experiences.
Shared leadership is most likely to be successful when the leaders involved
have a shared set of guiding principles and are able to work together
effectively.
 ORIGINS OF SHARED LEADERSHIP
Shared Leadershp can originate in different ways for different reasons; from corporate
mergers of equals, from co-founders, from the practice of two individuals sharing jobs, and
from invitations from sitting CEOs to share power.
For shared leadership to work, the co-leaders must have an extremely functional
relationship- to have immense trust in each others decisions. These relationships are built
slowly over time.
The creation of co-leaders from mergers is seldom successful; creation of co-leaders from co-
founders has a much better track record-
William Hewlett and Dave Packard- some companies may require more than one head to run.
Some companies have a tradition of a shared leadership - Goldman Sachs.
CASE 1:
The narrative about the founders of Intel, Bob Noyce, Gordon Moore, and Andy Grove,
offers valuable insights into effective leadership and organizational dynamics. Here
are the main lessons distilled from their experiences:

1.Combining Complimentary Skills:

The founders understood the importance of leveraging each other's strengths
rather than competing for dominance.
Each member brought a unique set of skills to the table, and they
complemented each other effectively.
Noyce excelled as the external face of the company, Moore focused on long-
term technological and financial strategies, and Grove was instrumental in
implementing rigorous management systems and processes
2.Low Ego and Realistic Self-Assessment:
Bob Noyce's humility and realistic self-assessment played a crucial role in the success of the
leadership team.
He recognized his limitations as a manager and willingly delegated the CEO role to others
better suited for the task.
This willingness to step back and allow others to take charge contributed to a harmonious
leadership dynamic.

3.Constructive Conflict:
The founders embraced healthy conflict as a means of surfacing tough issues and arriving at well-
rounded solutions. Despite their differing personalities and management styles, they viewed
conflict as an opportunity for growth and improvement.
Andy Grove, in particular, advocated for "constructive confrontation" to ensure that critical issues
were thoroughly discussed and addressed.
4.Regular Communication and Collaboration:
The founders prioritized regular communication and collaboration to maintain a unified
vision and approach to major issues.
Weekly meetings provided a dedicated space for discussion and resolution of differences,
ensuring that the leadership team remained aligned in their decisions and actions.

5.Mentorship and Continual Learning:

Bob Noyce's transition into a mentor role after his successful ventures underscores the
importance of mentorship and continual learning in leadership development.
By sharing their experiences and insights, the founders fostered a culture of growth and
development within the organization.

The case of Intel's founders serves as a compelling example of effective leadership characterized
by humility, collaboration, and a shared commitment to excellence.
 CASE 2:THE GENERAL ELECTRIC MODEL
While the GE model doesn't strictly adhere to shared leadership in the traditional
sense where leadership is distributed among a team without a designated leader, it
incorporates some elements of it:

Collaborative Decision-Making: The Office members likely discussed and debated

strategic issues before decisions were made. This differs from a top-down
leadership style where the CEO dictates everything.
Shared Workload: Responsibilities were shifted and reshuffled based on needs. This
suggests members weren't confined to rigid roles and likely took on additional
tasks as needed.
Focus on Team Success: The emphasis on "chemistry" and the fact that Vice
Chairmen weren't CEO candidates suggests a focus on the team's success rather
than individual glory.
However, there are limitations to shared leadership in this model:

Jack Welch's Dominance: The case study highlights Jack Welch's strong
influence on the team and his role in taking charge of critical businesses.
This suggests a power imbalance within The Office.
Lack of Formal Structure: There's no mention of a formal process for
decision-making or conflict resolution within The Office. This could
potentially lead to confusion or power struggles.

Overall, the GE model incorporates some aspects of shared leadership by

fostering collaboration and shared workload. However, Jack Welch's strong
leadership and the lack of a formal structure limit the extent of shared
decision-making and power distribution.
Working together
1) Working together not only means dividing tasks for accountability, But to
be able to be able to share credit as well
2) Joint Governance at any level is not only a test of practical and technical
abilities, But a test of also managing their respective egos
3) Co-leadership has worked at Intel and TIAA-CREF, and it has failed at
Disney and Citigroup because of the egos that were rampant in the executive
suites of those companies.
CASE 3:
The case study discusses Midwest Manufacturing Company, a family-owned
equipment manufacturer with a two-in-a-box leadership structure involving co-CEOs
John and Sue.
1. Initial Two-in-a-Box Structure:
In the old structure, co-CEOs John and Sue operated in a two-in-a-box
arrangement, where they did everything together and had all reporting
relationships to both of them. Sue excelled in dealing with distributors and
customer interactions more than John.

2. Shift to Separate Reporting Relationships:

John and Sue transitioned from the two-in-a-box structure to having separate
reporting relationships. They each took specific product lines and support
functions based on their preferences and expertise, rather than considering
interdependencies among functions and business units.
 3. Importance of Communication:
As John and Sue developed new reporting relationships, they began to
communicate less frequently as united leaders. This lack of communication led to
issues among their subordinates, who started "decision shopping." It's crucial for
co-leaders to frequently make joint presentations to ensure alignment and
coordination.

4.Lessons Learned:
The success of a co-leader approach depends on the relationship between
the leaders and how it is perceived by others in the organization. John and Sue's
decision to have separate reporting relationships was seen as an improvement
over the previous structure because they were aligned on the company's
direction and had different skills.
Conclusion:
The existence of numerous instances of effective co-leadership serves as
proof of the current misconception.
In contrast, the objective is to identify factors that enhance the probability of
achieving success for a specific leadership team.
The main factors include collaborative selection, complementing talents and
emotional orientations, and coordinated processes.
Despite being apparent, these practices are not commonly observed.
Research and study need to examine and evaluate these and additional
facets. Ensuring this is of utmost importance due to the enduring nature of
teamwork.