Do you know what style leader you are? There are a variety of different styles. From your traditional autocratic manager (think, they say jump you say how high) to a coaching style leader (they ask questions to help you discover if jumping is the best next step). Close to the coaching side of the spectrum is the democratic style of leadership. Now, before you get all twisted in your pants, we’re talking leadership styles not politics. This is more like little d democrat, the democratic process, than big D democrat. Let’s jump in to what it is, when it works, and when it can go terribly wrong. (Do you hate reading? Click here and learn from me on YouTube. If you’re really ambitious, read and watch. You’ll get more examples and tactical tools that way.)
What is Democratic style Leadership?
Very simply put democratic style leadership is when the members of the team participate in decision making. That can be done in a number of different ways depending on the situation, size of the team, and need of the decision. Some instances may call for all members of the team having a literal seat at the table when discussing a problem or decision that needs to be made. It could also look like voting buttons in an email. It could be notice that we are intending to do X thing and would like input on how to achieve that goal.
Photo by fauxels on Pexels.com
When does Democratic style work best?
The democratic style of leadership is at its peak when three things are true of the team. First is that the members of the team are experts in their day-to-day work and able to complete it with very good quality with limited to no direction. If the team members are experts, they are better able to participate in the decision-making progress because they know the work so well. Also, they are likely efficient enough that they don’t require a lot of oversight and management. Simple support from the leader is enough to get great results from hard working experts. When decisions need to be made the leader involves everyone in the solution. This ensures that each person has a voice and you’re getting the best results because of the diversity of thought that each member brings.
In practicality, I’ve seen this style work best for stable teams that trust each other and work well together. A team where Suzie pushes for perfection, Johnny gets excited about the next new thing, and Tom presses on all the weak spots, while they all pull their weight and work together respectfully, can flourish with a democratic style. When the leader is supportive and focuses on accountability (read more on how to get to that level here) the team can get to this stable point in a matter of months.
I have seen some amazing democratic style teams that run like well-oiled machines. Other teams striving for this style can crash and burn rather quickly. Ensuring that you have all the critical elements of talent, skill, support, and accountability is key. When you are missing just one this style does not work.
How the Democratic style can go terribly wrong.
Recently I was working with a client who wanted to build out their leadership development program. The company had invested heavily into corporate training on technical skills. There was a team of trainers, but they were all focused on specialty skill training for staff. When it came to leadership and management they relied on informal mentorship and on the job experience. This is pretty common for mid-sized businesses. They start developing leaders through mentorship and connections. As the company grows and becomes more complex, that mentorship is given less time and intention. It takes a little time for the development side to reflect that complexity of the organization.
This structure meant I was working with an established team of training professionals while also working with the leaders to build out the program. I was serving as a consultant on this project meaning that while I was developing and delivering the initial round of training, they would keep it in house after it was complete. So, I was working with the corporate training manager on building the program and on resourcing it go forward so I could train the trainer.
I noticed even within the first meeting that the manager was naturally a democratic leader. She had suggestions of what strategies to use and what to prioritize but always made decisions with the group. The team determined the path to take every time. As experienced specialty trainers, they all had different ideas of how the leader training should be structured and delivered. To be honest, with the right content, any of the ideas brought forth would have worked. They would have worked, if we chose one strategy and committed to it.
This is where the problem came in
After a few meetings with the team I found there were 2 team members that could be trained to deliver the leader training. Sure, they weren’t experts in the material, but that is what I was there for. There were 4 that were excellent skill trainers but would struggle to adapt to this content and 2 who were clearly coasting. The manager however wanted all 8 of her team members trained because they all expressed interest. She also wanted me to incorporate all of their ideas. She believed this project would work best if we handled as a group project. That would include the 9 of them, myself, and the 5 leader subject matter experts. This would ensure we get everyone’s perspective, and they all get an equal opportunity to participate.
This is how projects move into never ending status. I could not have a group of 15 people working on every piece of the puzzle. As a consultant expected to get this off the ground in a relatively short turn around, I’d never deliver! Not to mention, the team had several other priorities to work on. If everyone was focused on this one project, how would anything else get delivered during this time? I recommended a different approach that would include a project team of 3 with the leader subject matter experts coming in for specific pieces. I also provided a communication structure that would keep the rest of the group informed and would allow them to ask questions and provide perspective.
What were they missing?
You might have noticed that I said there was a group of critical elements to make a democratic style successful. Those are talent, skill, support, and accountability. This team was talented and possessed a lot of skill in delivering training. Their leader was very supportive. She thought the world of all of them and supported their involvement. What they didn’t have was accountability.
You have to look into the nuance to see it. She wanted everyone involved to the detriment of delivering on this initiative. There was no plan for how other objectives would be met. She wanted 2 people who were coasting along in their work to get the opportunity, even though they weren’t delivering. Simply, she wasn’t holding herself and her team accountable for the expectations set for them. Even with all of the support, talent, communication, and skill, the plan would fail without accountability.
A better, balanced approach
Sometimes a democratic style of leadership creates trust and fosters collaboration. Sometimes it leads to project paralysis and is the very definition of too many cooks in the kitchen. The experienced and skilled democratic leader knows when to involve everyone, and when to consider what their perspectives would be and make a decision. Get feedback once the decision is made. Provide details to the group. Hold the team to the expectation while honoring their perspectives.
Intentional leaders know that situation leadership is the real gold in leadership. They know when to act as a democratic leader, a servant leader, an autocratic leader, etc. There is a time and place for all of them and the flexibility to move through them fluidly makes the biggest and strongest impact.