Another great question!

As you have noted, leaders are typically viewed as being separate from the rest of the organization’s membership—they can be above in a typical hierarchy or possibly at the center if you have a matrix-like structure.  While there are examples of leaders who are also participating members of an organization (e.g., player-coaches), these are rare and for the purposes of this response will not be discussed.

In the mid-late 1980s a concept called “participatory management” was championed by authors like Edward E. Lawler III and others.  The premise of this concept was that organizations would be more effective, creative, and exciting if employees were more engaged in various aspects of the operation.  According to Lawler (High Involvement Management:  Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance) by pushing rewards, knowledge, power, and information flow to the lowest levels of the hierarchy, the organization would thrive.  It would also lessen the sense of “us”/“them” or “us”/“upper management”.  There was a greater chance for a shared sense of “we”.  In essence it goes back to the old saying, “People support what they help create.”  We often forget this notion and often pay the price when we do.

The notion of “equitable sharing of knowledge and resources” is, as I’m sure you realize, problematic.  One person’s “fair” is another person’s “outrageously one-sided”—it’s all about perspective.  Assuming certain limitations (specifically personnel issues) the sharing of information throughout the organization can be a big benefit, at least in the long run.  The members need to know the challenges being faced by the leadership.  The “equitable sharing of resources” is another matter but can benefit from a wide spread sharing of information.  In most cases, various worthy areas of the organization are competing for a limited amount of resources.  (Some authors state this as the primary reason that organizational politics exist.)  Since everyone cannot receive what they want (or sometimes even what they need or deserve), discrepancies will exist.  By providing the information and reasoning behind the decisions that were made about resources, members of the organization can begin to understand why certain areas were funded at the level they were. Agreement may not be complete but at least the reasoning behind the decisions will be out in the open.

Just to shake things up a bit, let’s shift the setting to the classroom.  The idea of “learner-centered” teaching seems to apply here.  In her great book Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, Maryellen Weimer notes that changes in the Balance of Power, the Function of Content, the Role of the Teacher, the Responsibility for Learning, and Evaluation Purpose and Processes need to happen in order for greater engagement of students.  Co-creating and sharing as much information as possible about the class, how it will be structured, how grades will be determined, and all other sorts of issues that impact a class can help students better negotiate the class.  If we view grades as “resources”, sharing the reasoning behind why certain grades were given is a key aspect in the learning process.  There is a saying that goes “Grades should never be a surprise”.  While this was never the case in my personal college career, I certainly understand the premise—that students should have a good sense of what they should receive and will receive for grades, both on individual assignments and for the final course grade.

I believe students seek out mentors who have knowledge, skills, and experiences that they (the students) do not believe they currently.  Because of this, students want someone who is a bit “separate” from them, and not necessarily a peer. 

As far as facilitators go, I believe this is more of a skill-set and that the role can be filled effectively by a peer—the person need not be “above” or separate from the participants.  Certainly there needs to be a level of expertise that affords that facilitator a degree of respect by the participants.  It’s also been my experience that leaders of organizations are not typically great facilitators.  That role is often better filled by others within the organization.

I’m reminded of an occurrence years ago when I was teaching full-time. I was chatting with a student in the program about various things, including the idea of making the classroom as level as possible with limited hierarchy.  I’ll always remember his reply, “Tim you can do all you can to make things level but the reality is that you give the grades so it can never be really level.”  Relatedly I’ve heard from a number of students that they wished instructors would take on more of a leadership role in the class—that one of the roles of the instructor is to be the leader and, when necessary, provide the authority needed to create a good learning environment for all students.

And in the end, you can delegate as much as you can, share power as much as you can, and try to engage the membership of the organization as much as you can—in essence sharing the authority--but in the end the leader still retains the responsibility for the success or failure of the organization.  That aspect of leadership cannot be given away.

Thanks for the great question.