There’s a quiet assumption baked into most of our ideas about leadership that leaders lead, and followers follow, and never the twain shall meet. You’re either at the front of the room or you’re in the seats. You’re either the one with the answers or the one with the questions. Leadership, in this view, is a position you occupy, not a practice you engage in.
The most effective leaders I’ve worked with, however, aren’t always out front. They know when to step up and when to step back. They contribute their perspective and then genuinely listen to someone else’s. They hold authority in some areas and defer completely to others on their team. They lead and follow, sometimes in the same conversation.
This is what collaborative leadership actually looks like in practice, and it’s a lot more nuanced than the heroic, lone-decision-maker model most of us were raised on.
Traditional leadership places all the pressure and wisdom at the top. One person is supposed to have the clearest view, make the best calls, and inspire everyone to march in the right direction. It’s a lot to ask of any human being. Even when leaders are genuinely talented, this model creates bottlenecks. It slows down decisions. It depresses the contribution of everyone who isn’t “in charge.” And over time, it quietly teaches people that their judgment doesn’t really matter.
The organizations I see struggling most are often ones where people are waiting for direction, waiting for approval, waiting to be told what the right next step is. That waiting is expensive. It’s also demoralizing, and it doesn’t have to be the way things work.
What it means to lead and follow at the same time
Collaborative leadership flips the script. Instead of asking “who’s in charge here,” it asks “who’s best positioned to take this forward right now?” Sometimes that’s you. Sometimes it isn’t. The skill is knowing the difference and being genuinely okay with both answers.
In practice, this means sharing the floor in meetings rather than dominating them. It means asking real questions, not rhetorical ones. It means distributing decision-making authority so people closest to the work can actually act on it and trusting your team’s expertise, even when your own instincts are nudging you to weigh in.
In short, it means following. Actively, intentionally, and without resentment. Following someone else’s lead isn’t a sign of weakness in a collaborative organization but rather a sign of maturity and trust.
If you’re a leader who’s been running on the traditional model, this shift doesn’t happen overnight. A few places to begin:
- Notice how much airtime you take in meetings. Are you contributing to a conversation or conducting it?
- Pay attention to where decisions are being made. Are they happening as close to the work as possible, or are they funneling up to you by default?
- Ask yourself who on your team has expertise you tend to override. What would it look like to genuinely defer to them?
- Try co-creating your meeting agendas rather than sending them out in advance. See what surfaces when people have a hand in shaping the conversation.
These are small moves, but they add up, and they send a clear signal to the people around you about what kind of leadership culture you’re building.
If you want help making this shift
This is exactly the kind of work we do at Transformetic: helping leaders and teams move from hierarchical, top-down dynamics to a more distributed, organic approach. Whether that’s through coaching, team development, or getting the right structures in place to support self-organization, we meet you where you are. My book, Organizing for Impact, also goes deep on collaborative leadership and how to make it practical in your organization.
If any of this is resonating, I’d love to hear what’s showing up for you. Drop a comment or reach out directly.
Leave a Reply