democratic leadership case study

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, democratic leadership and organizational performance: the moderating effect of contingent reward.

Management Research Review

ISSN : 2040-8269

Article publication date: 5 February 2021

Issue publication date: 16 July 2021

The purpose of this study is to investigate the moderating effect of contingent reward on the relationship between democratic leadership and organizational performance.

Design/methodology/approach

Explanatory and cross-sectional survey designs were used. A quantitative research approach was also adopted to collect the data from 476 employees in the telecommunication industry. Using statistics package for social science, the data was analyzed via descriptive statistics, correlation and hierarchical regression techniques.

The results reveal that both democratic leadership and contingent reward have a significant positive relationship with organizational performance. Furthermore, contingent reward significantly augments and moderates the relationship between democratic leadership and organizational performance. Thus, the combination of democratic leadership and contingent reward would more likely produce higher organizational performance.

Originality/value

This study has made a significant contribution to leadership and organizational literature by establishing the effectiveness of contingent reward as a moderator on the relationship between democratic leadership and organizational performance in a telecommunication industry.

• Organizational performance
• Democratic leadership
• Contingent reward

Hilton, S.K. , Arkorful, H. and Martins, A. (2021), "Democratic leadership and organizational performance: the moderating effect of contingent reward", Management Research Review , Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 1042-1058. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-04-2020-0237

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2021, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Search term Advanced Search Citation Search
• Individual login
• Institutional login

Editorial: Democratic leadership: a charming solution for nursing's legitimacy crisis

Mick McKeown

Democratic Mental Health, School of Health, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

Lynda Carey

Faculty of Health & Social Care, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK

Plato referred to democracy as a charming form of government. In the UK, the impact of the Mid Staffordshire Inquiry ( 2013 ), Berwick ( 2013 ), and Clwyd-Hart Reviews ( 2013 ) has fundamentally influenced the public perception of nurses, resulting in a significant legitimacy crisis for the profession. Nursing has arguably lost some of its charm with the public and the very experience of nursing work has become stressful, beset with uncertainty, and unrewarding for many practitioners. These trials and tribulations appear to be endemic and not confined to the UK. Here, we argue that nursing can recover some of its esteem and lay claim to renewed legitimacy if services were to adopt more democratic systems of management. Ultimately, there is a case for moving beyond a mere rhetoric of ‘democratic leadership’, as valued in some education and research contexts, to actually realise in practice a new cadre of nurse leaders steeped in an ethos of participation, cooperation and empowerment.

What has gone wrong?

Bauman identifies a state of liquid modernity, within which professional disciplines such as nursing flounder as previous certainties and organisational anchorage points, even ethical frameworks, are dismantled within an ever expanding neo-liberal polity (Randall & McKeown 2014 ). In particular, health care workers have been beleaguered by a slew of politically driven, top–down change management initiatives, disseminated to grass-roots practitioners without meaningful opportunity to influence genesis or implementation. This is increasingly evident post-Francis, with politicians eager to visibly identify and resolve issues centrally whilst extolling the importance of local leadership.

Indeed, Francis's recommendations largely constitute a plea for more and better nurse leadership. This begs the question, beyond an emphasis on compassion, what sort of leadership? Most NHS managers have not been trained for leadership. There has been a recent proliferation of nurse leadership curricula, with a certain focus upon theories of participation, voice, partnership and workforce empowerment. There is less evidence that novel leadership ideas percolate into practice. If anything, fairly rigid and authoritarian hierarchies persist as the norm, and much time is wasted on discipline and grievance. Furthermore, inter-disciplinary dominions continue to subjugate and disempower nurses.

Arguably, the relative lack of democracy and participation in workplace decision-making is one source of diminished staff morale. This highlights a typically neglected aspect of discourse on nurse leadership – the importance of power relations (Cleary et al . 2011 ). A lack of control over work pattern, content and intensity leads to alienation in role. Associated negative impact upon caring relationships has profound consequences for sense of self as a compassionate, ‘good’ nurse. This is particularly problematic in the case of nurses’ work as it contradicts the potential to realise ideals of autonomy in practice. The degradation of health care work associated with neoliberal efficiencies has undermined the capability of nurses to exert influence and involvement at all stages of the nursing process or patient journey. With jobs fragmenting into tasks, many of them impersonal and administrative, scientific management triumphs over salutogenic principles.

What can be done?

Nurse education has long been influenced by humanistic psychologies and progressive theories of learning, such as advocated by Paulo Freire. These frame education as an empowering, participatory process enacted amongst peers. For the emancipatory potential to be realised: ‘respect for the autonomy and dignity of every person is an ethical imperative and not a favour that we may or may not concede to each other’ (Freire 1998 : 59). This critical pedagogy is essentially relational, democratic and political. Within groups who come together to learn, conscientisation or political awakening, is brought about in tandem with mutual understanding, love and hope.

Many of the aforementioned nurse leadership courses have distinctly Freirian overtones and promote distributed decision-making, collective leadership and the importance of real, effective team working (West 2012 ). An emphasis on transformational leadership to support both improved quality of care and address cost efficiency and effectiveness challenges raises expectations that nurses are in a position to lead and change practice. In reality the complexity of healthcare provision, with competing professional demands, resource restrictions and top down decision-making severely limits the potential of bottom up change to be acknowledged and actualised. Furthermore, favoured models of transformational leadership have been questioned for uncritical adoption and deficits in authenticity, integrity and ethical practice when vertical rather than horizontal leadership structures are emphasised (Hutchinson & Jackson 2013 ).

Alongside pedagogical developments, advances in the research context have also increasingly promoted inclusive, democratic methods, such as participatory action research, appreciative inquiry and experience-based co-design. The best of these view health care teams and service users as a community, with potential to work together to imagine and implement new ways of working and relating to each other. The irony is that demonstrable benefits of such approaches have to be considered on a project by project basis. An equally plausible prospect might be to apply the principles and practices of these methods wholesale into the management and organisation of health care services. This would represent a democratisation of the labour process and would also allow for such workplace democracy to be inclusive of other important perspectives, such as service users and informal carers.

One of the key lessons from Mid Staffordshire is that service user and carer voices were not listened to when concerns over inadequate care were highlighted. Interestingly, some nurses and union representatives also initially raised concerns but were ignored by management, and the Francis Report recommends better systems for supporting nursing union representation and attending to employee voice. A wealth of government policy has accelerated interest in service user or carer involvement in the planning and delivery of public services (and in education and research) and nurses have been at the heart of supporting these endeavours. Some of the more interesting examples employ implicitly deliberative and democratic approaches and have engineered high quality alliances between staff and service users engaging in key aspects of decision making with meaningful, if modest, impact at organisational levels (McKeown et al . 2014a ). Yet, much of what passes for service user involvement is not influential at the most important levels of large health care organisations and has not resulted in transformative change.

In a variety of employment contexts, different forms of workplace democracy have been enacted, positively influencing employee well-being and organisational efficiency. On the whole, however, western businesses that have supported workplace democracy have favoured representative rather than participatory or prefigurative forms. If it were not for the encroachment of neoliberalism into the sector, a strong case could be made that public services, such as health care, ought to be more opportune environs for considering extensions of democratic voice in how their core work is organised.

Typically, and for good reasons, appeals for increased workplace democracy are driven by trade unions. Unions themselves, however, are beset by their own legitimacy crisis; losing members and public support in the face of industrial decline and austerity. Union renewal tactics revolve around approaches to organising, aimed at revitalisation of social ties between members and extending social capital beyond the workplace to alliances with communities and movements with shared social justice interests (McKeown et al . 2014b ). These organising efforts have not necessarily reversed membership losses, but they have provoked critical reflection on democracy and voice. Indeed, a recent review of UK union organising strategies concludes that workplace democracy goals are a logical extrapolation of thinking about union renewal (Simms et al . 2013 ). Given public service organisations typically subscribe to notions of employer–union partnership, there is no axiomatic impediment to further enhancement of worker voice.

New model leaders

Taken together, approaches to supporting worker and service user voice make a virtue of solidarity and cooperation and should be enjoyable (Sennett 2012 ) or ameliorate the remarked upon alienation in patient and worker roles. In nursing and nurse education contexts, models of distributed, horizontal, ‘servant’ leadership, vested across the workforce have been contrasted with the yearning for visionary, charismatic manager-leaders (Jackson 2008 , Jackson & Watson 2009 ). A new class of nurse leaders committed to a public service ethos could harness participatory, deliberative democratic ideals and make real the contention that communication can be the driver for progressive change (Habermas 1987 ). As we have seen, this would reconnect with nursing's historical affinity for humanistic and Freirian values and provide a potent riposte to the denigration of nursing identity and degradation of nurses’ work gathering pace in late capitalism. Indeed, Bevan and Fairman's ( 2014 ) call to action for a novel, radical approach to leadership, with democracy, social connectivity and community engagement at the centre of practice, offers hope for nurse leaders committed to delivering compassionate care.

Such nurse leaders would be facilitative rather than directive, freeing up time to consider wider aspects of innovation, evidence and public participation. The latter point is crucial because any democratic systems that emerge would be imperfect without the inclusion of service user, carer and public voice. Essential leadership skills and attributes must of necessity include listening, patience and humility. There must also be the resilience and flexibility to recognise that the sort of dialogue that will arise in an authentic, inclusive democracy of this kind will inevitably be unsettling and unsettled. Such democratisation will also, however, be ripe with possibilities: the promise of truly understanding what we mean by empowered and emancipatory care. An exceedingly charming possibility indeed.

• Berwick D ( 2013 ) A Promise to Learn – A Commitment to Act, Improving the Safety of Patients in England . Department of Health, London . Google Scholar
• Bevan H & Fairman S ( 2014 ) The new era of thinking and practice in change transformation: A Call to Action for Leaders of Health and Care , NHSIQ (NHS Improving Quality). Available at: http://media.nhsiq.nhs.uk/whitepaper/html5/index.html?page=1 (accessed 12 March 2014). Google Scholar
• Cleary M , Horsfall J , Deacon M & Jackson D ( 2011 ) Leadership and mental health nursing . Issues in Mental Health Nursing 32 , 632 – 639 . 10.3109/01612840.2011.584362 PubMed Google Scholar
• Clwyd A & Hart P ( 2013 ) A Review of the NHS Hospitals Complaints System, Putting Patients Back in the Picture . Department of Health, London . Google Scholar
• Francis R ( 2013 ) Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry . Stationary Office, London . Google Scholar
• Freire P ( 1998 ) Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy and Civic Courage . Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD . Google Scholar
• Habermas J ( 1987 ) The theory of communicative action . Volume 2. The critique of functionalist reason. Tr. T. McCarthy. Polity Press, Cambridge . Google Scholar
• Hutchinson M & Jackson D ( 2013 ) Transformational leadership in nursing: towards a more critical interpretation . Nursing Inquiry 20 , 11 – 22 . 10.1111/nin.12006 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Jackson D ( 2008 ) Servant Leadership in Nursing: a framework for developing sustainable research capacity in nursing . Collegian 15 , 27 – 33 . 10.1016/j.colegn.2007.10.001 PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Jackson D & Watson R ( 2009 ) Editorial: lead us not . Journal of Clinical Nursing 18 , 1961 – 1962 . 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02850.x CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• McKeown M , Cresswell M & Spandler H ( 2014a ) Deeply engaged relationships: alliances between mental health workers and psychiatric survivors in the UK . In Psychiatry Disrupted: Theorizing Resistance and Crafting the (R)Evolution . ( B Burstow , BA LeFrancois & SL Diamond eds). McGill/Queen's University Press, Montreal, QC . Google Scholar
• McKeown M , Jones F , Wright K , Spandler H , Wright J , Fletcher H , Duxbury J , McVittie J , Simon [pseudonym] & Turton W ( 2014b ) It's the talk: a study of involvement practices in secure mental health services . Health Expectations doi: 10.1111/hex.12232 . 10.1111/hex.12232 PubMed Google Scholar
• Randall D & McKeown M ( 2014 ) Failure to care: nursing in a state of liquid modernity? Journal of Clinical Nursing 23 , 766 – 767 . 10.1111/jocn.12441 CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
• Sennett R ( 2012 ) Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation . Allen Lane, London . Google Scholar
• Simms M , Holgate J & Heery E ( 2013 ) Union Voices – Tactics and Tensions in UK Organizing . ILR Press, Ithaca . Google Scholar
• West MA ( 2012 ) Effective Team Work , 3rd edn . PBS Blackwell, Oxford . Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume 24 , Issue 3-4

February 2015

Pages 315-317

Information

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Log in to Wiley Online Library

Change password, your password must have 10 characters or more:.

• a lower case character, 
• an upper case character, 
• a special character 

Password Changed Successfully

Your password has been changed

Create a new account

Forgot your password.

Enter your email address below.

Please check your email for instructions on resetting your password. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account.

Request Username

Can't sign in? Forgot your username?

Enter your email address below and we will send you your username

If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username

Pursue the Next You in 2024 with 20% Tuition Reduction on October Courses!

Democratic Leadership Style: Characteristics, Pros and Cons

Last Updated March 8, 2024

If you know the definition of democracy, you’re well on your way to understanding what it means to be a democratic leader. Democratic leadership is also known as shared, or participatory, leadership. These alternative names give you a good idea of the basics of this leadership style. In contrast to autocratic leaders , democratic leaders spread the wealth, giving group members the opportunity to contribute ideas and make decisions as a team.

A tortoise and the hare analogy might apply here. Autocratic leaders are like the hare, quick and decisive, but sometimes handicapped by their own ego. Democratic leaders, on the other hand, are like the tortoise. They implement a creative, participative process that can at times be slow, but has winning results: higher productivity and job satisfaction.

What is Democratic Leadership?

Foundational psychologist Kurt Lewin defined three major leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire. According to theorist John Gastil, Lewin and his colleagues created a rough sketch of democratic leadership, one that we still rely on today: Democratic leaders rely on group decision making, active member involvement, honest praise and criticism, and a degree of comradeship.

To bear out his theories of leadership, Lewin conducted a study in the Journal of Social Psychology in 1939, in which he assigned schoolchildren to three groups, each with either an authoritarian, democratic, or laissez-faire leader. He found that autocratic leadership drastically increased hostility and aggression among the students. On the other hand, democratic leadership resulted in less tension and better performance, which was sustained when the leader left for a period and students had to work alone.  

The idea of democratic leadership clearly comes from the early concept of democracy, which in short, means government by the people. In a democracy, some people fill the role of leaders and some the role of followers, but everybody has equal say in the decision-making process. 

Daniel Goleman expanded on Lewin’s ideas of leadership with his six leadership styles , adding two important elements to the definition of democratic leadership: empowerment and consensus-seeking. Team members are empowered to participate fully in group decision-making and the process is geared toward reaching a consensus.

Characteristics of the Democratic Leadership Style

Leaders who embrace the democratic style of leadership often possess the following characteristics. 

Promote creativity

In shared leadership, leaders trust their teams to generate ideas and come up with solutions. This trust encourages organizational creativity, spurring teams to work together in new ways, without micromanagement.

Democratic leaders want all team members to be involved. Everyone comes to the table when it’s time to make a decision. This approach reduces power struggles and makes team members feel valued.

Collaborative

In contrast with other styles of leadership, democratic leadership encourages team members to work together. Employees can’t just rely on the leader’s edicts to get things done. Instead, they have to come up with solutions themselves, knowing that their leader is there to take responsibility when there’s an issue. 

Trust-building

Above all, participatory leaders trust their teams to get things done. They follow Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y model, an optimistic approach that assumes workers are self-motivated, see work as fulfilling and can solve problems creatively on their own.

Democratic Leadership Examples

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was famously democratic in his leadership style, once said that “leadership consists of nothing but taking responsibility for everything that goes wrong and giving your subordinates credit for everything that goes well.” 

This attitude doesn’t come automatically to everyone, but it can be learned. Continuing education coursework, such as Strategic Organizational Leadership , a course within Villanova’s Certificate in Organizational Leadership program, can help you acquire the four traits of democratic leaders. 

Known as the “Balancer in Chief,” Eisenhower demonstrated the qualities of democratic leadership by building strategic coalitions and bringing on board knowledgeable experts to help make important decisions. 

Mahatma Gandhi, one of the great leaders of our time, exemplified many of the traits of a democratic leader. He brought together broad coalitions of people, working among them instead of above them. He held the life-long belief that every class of people had something to contribute, and he encouraged diverse and often at-odds groups to find ways to work together. The people of India trusted him, and he trusted them to create a new future for India, together.

Pros and Cons of Democratic Leadership

While democratic leadership has many benefits, there are some drawbacks. 

Cons of democratic leadership

• Slower decision making: Because democratic leadership requires building coalitions and coming to a shared consensus as a team, it can take longer to make decisions than in situations where one leader is unilaterally deciding an organization’s direction.
• Can lead to communication failures: If a democratic leader is not adequately engaged or employees don’t have the experience to make important decisions, deadlines can be shuffled to the side and momentum can go haywire. 

Pros of democratic leadership

• Empowering: Employees are trusted as capable, creative team members, not simply mechanisms for carrying out a boss’s instructions. They are empowered to come up with solutions and get better at their jobs. 
• Increases employee satisfaction: A meta-analysis of democratic leadership studies shows that there is an increase in group member satisfaction among groups led by democratic leaders. 

When is the Democratic Leadership Style Most Effective?

The democratic style of leadership is the most effective in the following scenarios: 

• When you want to encourage creativity: Democratic leadership starts with the assumption that employees are creative and gives them the tools to express their ideas.
• When you’re working with millennial team members: Millennials want opportunities for growth, engagement and flexibility—all areas democratic leadership excels in.
• When you’re directing experts: Who better to make decisions than the experts themselves? 

Think about the leaders you’ve worked with. Have you worked with a democratic leader? What did their style look like in action? How did they use participation effectively? While not everybody is, or has to be, a democratic leader, the beneficial side of democratic leadership can help you understand how to build a team that works together creatively.

Related Articles

Take the next step in your career with a program guide!

By completing this form and clicking the button below, I consent to receiving calls, text messages and/or emails from BISK, its client institutions, and their representatives regarding educational services and programs. I understand calls and texts may be directed to the number I provide using automatic dialing technology. I understand that this consent is not required to purchase goods or services. If you would like more information relating to how we may use your data, please review our privacy policy .

• Corpus ID: 260124387

Democratic Leadership Style and Organizational Performance: An Appraisal

• E. Dike , M. Madubueze
• Published 2019

8 Citations

Assessing student leaders’ leadership styles and conflict management, what are the appropriate leadership styles for class c hospital in national health insurance (jkn) era, the organisational life cycle principles applied to leadership practices in growing churches, psychometric assessment of lee yew’s leadership role in singapore’s development: a systematic review, feminine vs. masculine: expectations of leadership styles in hotels during the covid-19 pandemic, analisis gaya kepemimpinan demokratis dalam meningkatkan motivasi anggota organisasi himpunan mahasiswa prodi manajemen unusida, influence of principals' administrative styles on teachers’ performance in aba education zone of abia state, nigeria, beş yıldızlı otel i̇şletmeleri çalışanlarının algıladıkları otokratik ve demokratik liderlik tarzlarının performans düzeylerine etkisi: i̇stanbul i̇li örneği (the effect of autocratic and democratic leadership styles perceived by employees of five star hotel businesses on performance levels: the sample, 32 references, impact of leadership style on organization performance: a critical literature review, democratic leadership: the lessons of exemplary models for democratic governance, participative management and job satisfaction: lessons for management leadership, ceo transformational leadership and organizational outcomes: the mediating role of human–capital-enhancing human resource management, distributed leadership in teams: the network of leadership perceptions and team performance., the relationship between leadership styles and employees’ performance in organizations (a study of selected business organizations in federal capital territory, abuja nigeria), how to choose a leadership pattern, an investigation of path-goal theory , relationship of leadership style , supervisor-related commitment , and gender leana.

• Highly Influential

The Impact of Path-Goal Leadership Styles on Work Group Effectiveness and Turnover Intention

Leadership behavior and acceptance of leaders by subordinates: application of path goal theory in telecom sector, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Participative Leadership: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

1 School of Economics and Management, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China

2 College of Business Administration, Gachon University, Seongnam, South Korea

3 School of Management, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China

Changes in the external market environment put forward objective requirements for the formulation of organizational strategic plans, making it difficult for the organization’s leaders to make the right and effective decisions quickly on their own. As a result, participative leadership, which encourages and supports employees to participate in the decision-making process of organizations, has received increasing attention in both theory and practice. We searched the literature related to participative leadership in databases such as Web of Science, EBSCO, ProQuest, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Based on this, we clarify the concept of participative leadership, propose a definition of participative leadership, summarize measurement scales for this type of leadership, and compare participative leadership with other leadership styles (empowering leadership and directive leadership). We also present a research framework for participative leadership that demonstrates its antecedents; the mechanisms for its development based on social exchange theory, conservation of resources theory, social cognitive theory; social information processing theory, and implicit leadership theory; and outcomes. Finally, we identify five potential research areas: Connotation, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators, and study of participative leadership in China.

Introduction

In the digital age, companies are actively taking accurate decisions such as using advanced technology to enhance their competitive advantage in the marketplace ( Su et al., 2021 ). But where do good measures and perfect solutions come from? The answer comes from the masses. With the dramatic changes in the competitive business environment, it is difficult for organizational leaders to make timely and effective decisions on their own, which has led to the active presence of employees in organizational decision-making today ( Peng et al., 2021 ). At the same time, due to the use of modern information technology such as computer networks and system integration, there is a bottom-up flow of information within the enterprise, and these cross-level, multi-dimensional “employee opinions” play an increasingly important role in leadership decision-making. Improving a company’s competitive advantage, sustainable development goal and performance is increasingly dependent on the active participation of the organization’s employees in decision-making ( Chang et al., 2021 ; Jia et al., 2021 ). In particular, Peter Drucker, the master of manageme, also considered that “encouraging employee involvement” is an important part of effective leadership in his influential study “Management by Objective.” In practice, some well-known companies have gradually started to call for employee participation behaviors in decision-making to varying degrees. For example, leaders in the R&D department of Volvo Cars actively use shared open rights and encourage diversity initiatives to promote employee participation in decision-making to facilitate organizational innovation ( Jing et al., 2017 ). It is easy to see that employee participation, a key component of organizational decision-making, is an important influencing factor for business organizations to adapt to the dynamic business environment and improve the effectiveness and science of leaders’ decisions. Therefore, it is an important issue that leaders need to focus on in real-time, especially in organizations with a high power distance culture, to promote the participation of their subordinates in organizational decision-making ( Huang et al., 2010 ). This requires leaders to adopt a supportive, democratic leadership style, known as participative leadership. A large number of scholars also agree that organizational leaders are increasingly relying on highly engaged employees to meet the challenges of a competitive marketplace, so participative leadership, which seeks to promote behaviors that support employee participation in organizational decision-making, is gaining attention in many organizations ( Huang et al., 2006 ). Participative leadership exists in organizations of any size, of any type and at any stage, where openness and empowerment of employees in the organizational decision-making process are core characteristics that distinguish it from other leadership styles ( Huang et al., 2021 ). When making strategic decisions, participative leaders are able to share decision-making power and fully consult employees to jointly deal with the work problems ( Chan, 2019 ).

In summary, participative leaders encourage and support employees to participate in the decision-making process in order to make effective organizational decisions and to solve work problems together through a range of measures ( Kahai et al., 1997 ). However, there is still much space for theoretical research on participative leadership, and the organizational practice with the current call for “employee participation in decision-making” needs to be optimised and improved, and there is an urgent need to balance the organizational practice and theoretical research on “employee participation” and “scientific decision-making” from the leadership level. In order to accelerate the exploration of participative leadership and promote the research on the effectiveness of participative leadership, we systematically review the literature on participative leadership, summarise and outline its concept, measurement scales and conceptual comparisons, antecedents, mechanisms and outcomes, and present future research perspectives.

Literature Collection

We searched the literature on participative leadership published in databases such as Web of Science, ProQuest, EBSCO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). To perform the search, we used the keywords “participative leadership,” “participative management,” “participative behavior,” and “participative leader.” We also used a snowballing approach to identify relevant literature by searching the list of references we found in our research. Also, to better examine the similarities and differences in leadership styles in our work, we had collected literature related to directive leadership and empowering leadership in these databases. And we only used the keywords “directive leadership,” and “empowering leadership.”

Literature Processing

Literature was included in our research if it met the following criteria. First, we collected research on the topic of participative leadership, excluding leadership research unrelated to participative management. Second, the literature we collected on participative leadership had to be written in either English or Chinese, excluding relevant research in other languages. Third, the literature included both quantitative and qualitative research and did not impose any restrictions on where the research was conducted or the industry in which it was conducted. Fourth, the information we collected on participative leadership included published journal articles, conference papers, master’s and doctoral dissertations, and so on. In addition, compared to participative leadership, we collected mostly review-based literature on empowering leadership and directive leadership, including some empirical researches, to better understand both types of leadership. Also, the literature must be written in Chinese or English.

The Concept of Participative Leadership

According to literature review, participative leadership is a democratic leadership that involves subordinates in organizational decision-making and management, with the aim of effectively enhancing employees’ sense of ownership and actively integrating their personal goals into organizational goals. Therefore, in the daily leadership process, leaders actively implement “participation management” for their subordinates, such as conveying meaningful values, actively organizing reporting and other flexible promotion strategies ( Jing et al., 2017 ). The American scholar Likert (1961) , after extensive experimental research on democratic leadership, formally introduced the concept of participative leadership in his book “A New Model of Management” and revealed the three main principles of participative leadership theory, including the mutual support principle, the group decision principle and the high standards principle. Since the introduction of participative leadership, it has received much attention from a large number of researchers. Based on previous research, Kahai et al. (1997) redefined it as participative leadership, which refers to a leadership style in which leaders ask employees for their opinions before making decisions, delegate decision-making authority to subordinates in practice, and encourage active participation by employees to make decisions together. The literature also reflects two core characteristics of participative leadership: first, employees are consulted before decisions are made in order to solve problems together; second, employees are given resources to support them in the work process ( Kahai et al., 1997 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Li et al., 2018 ).

Participative leadership is also characterised in practice by the following features: first, in the process of employee participation in decision-making, leaders and subordinates are on an equal footing and trust each other completely, and organizational issues are resolved through democratic consultation. Second, in general, although participative management involves a wide range of employees in decision-making, the final decision is still made by the leaders. Huang et al. (2010) also explored participative leadership in-depth and argued that participative leadership requires more encouragement and support for employees in the decision-making process and sharing of information and ideas, which has been recognized by many scholars ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Li et al., 2018 ). It is easy to see that the core of participative leadership is to encourage employees to participate in organizational decision-making, and the key to the leadership process is to make a series of management tasks such as consulting employees before making decisions ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). Thus, based on many previous studies and practical experience, we consider participative leadership as a set of leadership behaviors that promote subordinates to participate in decision-making by giving them a certain degree of discretionary powers, effective information and other resources, as well as care and encouragement, so that they can be consulted enough before making decisions to solve work problems together( Huang et al., 2010 ; Chan, 2019 ).

Measurement of Participative Leadership

The current measurement of participative leadership is mainly in the form of questionnaires in quantitative research and consists of the following measurement scales. First, Vroom (1959) psychological participation questionnaire, which evaluates the frequency with which leaders demonstrate a participative leadership style and reflects the overall ability of members to influence decisions and provide input and advice to leaders, consists of four questions (α = 0.63), sample item: “If you had a suggestion to improve your work or change a process in some way, how easy would it be for you to communicate the idea to your leader.”

Second, the empowering leadership scale (ELS) developed by Arnold et al. (2000) in which subjects score perceived leadership behaviors, with several items in the participation in decision-making section becoming a measure of participative leadership (α = 0.86), and is currently recognized by most scholars, with a total of six questions, and a sample item is “Encourages work group members to express ideas/suggestions.” The measurement scale developed by Arnold et al. (2000) has been widely used in empirical research ( Huang et al., 2010 ; Lam et al., 2015 ; Peng et al., 2021 ).

Third, the participative management questionnaires. In research of participative management in education, Somech (2002) designed a participative management scale with a total of thirty-five items, which includes five dimensions: decision domain (10 items; α = 0.83), degree of participation (4 items; α = 0.79), structure (3 items; α = 0.79), rationale (9 items; α = 0.77), and participation target (9 items; α = 0.69). Decision domain refers to determine if, after a decade of explicit attention to and advocacy of enhanced participative leadership, principals prefer to involve teachers not only in the technical domain, but also in the managerial, and a sample item is “Setting and revising the school goals.” Degree of participation refers to differentiating the extent of participation from the degree of participation, and a sample item is “Makes decisions on his or her own.” Structure refers to the extent to which a formal structure for validating decisions exist in the school and their relationship to other dimensions of participation, and a sample item is “To what extent explicit procedures existed at the school concerning who participated in the decision-making process.” Rationale is to determine, through an exploratory method, the main motives that inspired principals to participate in management and their relationship with the degree of participative management, and a sample item is “Encourage teacher’s acceptance of the decision.” Participation target refers to examine principals’ considerations in choosing which teacher to involve in the decision-making process, and a sample item is “The teacher expressed an independent thinking style.” The measurement scale developed by Somech (2002) has been found to have a good use in research ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ).

Fourth, some scholars had adapted or developed participative leadership scales by themselves, but the use is limited. For example, Kahai et al. (2004) used group-level responses (3 items) about how frequently participants observed the leader to implement participative management. A sample item is “Incorporating their suggestions into the final decision.” And Li et al. (2018) adapted from Oldham and Cummings (1996) and Kahai’s studies ( Kahai et al., 2004 ), which asked employees to rate their team leaders’ participative leadership behaviors on a four-item scale (α = 0.81), with typical questions such as “Puts suggestions from our group members into the final decision.” The individual responses were aggregated to the team level. Mean r wg was 0.90. And Zhao et al. (2019) developed a five-item scale, with typical questions such as “Leaders encourage team members to be active in suggesting ideas” (α = 0.80). In addition, there are also some studies that utilize the case method in qualitative research. For example, Jing et al. (2017) used an embedded case approach to provide an in-depth analysis of the role played by participative leadership. Finally, we summarize the major ways and references of previous measurements in the form of tables, as shown in Table 1 .

Summary of measurements.

Comparison Between Participative Leadership and Other Leadership Styles

A review of the recent literature reveals that some scholars usually discuss participative leadership together with empowering leadership and directive leadership, but they are only mentioned, without in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences between them ( Lonati, 2020 ; Zou et al., 2020 ). At present, the lack of comprehensive comparative analysis of the three leadership styles. Therefore, we analyze the similarities and differences between participative leadership and empowering leadership and directive leadership to varying degrees and compares them in terms of key characteristics, behavioral approaches and behavioral motives to highlight the unique research value of participative leadership, as shown in Table 2 .

Contrast of different leadership styles.

Empowering Leadership

The situational empowerment perspective emphasizes the practice of empowerment in organizational situations and defines empowering leadership as a series of management practices that empower subordinates. The psychological empowerment perspective emphasizes the psychological experience of empowerment and defines it as a motivational tool to eliminate employees’ internal feelings of disempowerment by raising their level of motive. And the integration of situational perspective and psychological perspective emphasizes the leaders’ behavior toward power sharing and employees’ perceptions of empowerment, illustrating the process of achieving power sharing between leaders and employees ( Tang et al., 2012 ). It is easy to see that both empowering leadership and participative leadership denote the delegation of leadership authority, but the focus are different. Specifically, participative leadership refers to the sharing and delegation of decision-making power, which means that subordinates are able to participate in the leaders’ decisions and express their views, while empowered leadership is more concerned with the delegation of personal authority and job responsibilities, so that subordinates have a certain degree of autonomy in deciding how to work, in order to achieve self-motive ( Amundsen and Martinsen, 2014 ). In addition, empowering leaders have a certain degree of positivity when they delegate their power, but they also tend to make employees feel that the leader is not willing to manage, which reduces the effectiveness of leadership. However, the participative leaders only share decision-making power with subordinates, retaining the authority and responsibility for leadership work and effectively avoiding employees’ perceptions of laissez-faire management. Thus, participative leadership is unique in that it not only achieves performance goals but also reduces the corresponding negative impacts ( Zou et al., 2020 ).

Directive Leadership

Directive leadership is about providing specific instructions to employees and clarifying policies, rules and procedures designed to organize the work of subordinates by providing obvious instructions and expectations regarding compliance with instructions ( Li et al., 2018 ; Lonati, 2020 ). In short, directive leadership is the use of leadership authority to tell subordinates what to do by way of orders, instructions, etc., in order to successfully achieve organizational goals. In other words, directive leadership is the procedure and method by which the leader assigns organizational tasks to subordinates and accomplishes them by means of one-way communication, and there is a relationship of command and obedience, instruction and execution between the leader and subordinates. Not only that, organizations with directive leadership are more likely to have normalized work processes, and employees are likely to obey the precise orders of the leader, allowing themselves to be fully focused on completing specific work tasks ( Lorinkova et al., 2013 ). Consequently, social messages such as clear work objectives, specific work procedures and supervision by organizational leaders create a sense of rules and responsibility among subordinates, but undermine employee creativity. Participative leaders, however, actively engage in interpersonal interaction with their employees in order to make decisions together. And, participative leadership, characterised by autonomy, collaboration and openness, encourages the employees to work innovatively by providing creative ideas and solutions that lead to the best decisions ( Lam et al., 2015 ). Therefore, participative leadership is more effective in stimulating employee creativity than directive leadership.

Research Framework for Participative Leadership

Changes in the external marketplace put forward objective demands on the development of the organization’s strategic solutions, making it difficult for the organization’s leaders to make the right and effective decisions quickly on their own ( Li et al., 2018 ; Zhao et al., 2019 ). Based on a review of previous research, we develop a research framework for participative leadership (shown in Figure 1 ) including the antecedents, mechanisms (mediator and moderator), and consequences of this type of leadership, with a view to clearly showing the lineage of empirical research on participative leadership for scholars’ subsequent exploration.

Empirical research on participative leadership. Data sources were reviewed according to relevant literature; “-”represents the existing research path and variables; “*”represents the path and variables proposed in future research.

The Antecedents of Participative Leadership

The antecedents of participative leadership can provide positive guidance for the development of this leadership research. Currently, the antecedents of participative leadership can be divided into individual-level antecedents and organizational-level antecedents. A lot of studies on antecedents focus on the individual level, such as individual experience, assessment model and leader-member individual difference ( Somech, 2002 ; Li et al., 2018 ). These factors promote leaders to show more participative management behaviors. In contrast, greater organizational control over participative behaviors tends to push leaders to highlight the significance of employee participation in organizational decision-making. As proof, organizational culture and organizational size have great influence on leaders’ participative management behaviors.

Individual-Level Antecedents

Some scholars pointed out that the implementation of participative management is related to personal factors. For example, experienced leaders may be more inclined to engage in participative management ( Somech, 2002 ). Among the specific research on individual influences, the influence of personality tendencies on leadership style has become a key theoretical concern. In particular, based on the regulatory model theory, Li et al. (2018) found that the assessment model refers to the fact that individuals are more concerned with obtaining the best solution during self-regulation, and it is more likely to develop a participative leadership style, while the locomotion model is more concerned with state change and more likely to develop a directive leadership style. At the same time, the leader’s awareness of participative management is key to influencing his or her participative management style and is seen as a determinant of participative leadership. For example, in a research on leaders in business and government, Black (2020) showed that leaders’ self-awareness has a significant impact on their leadership style, and the higher the level of self-reported individual awareness, the more pronounced the participative leadership style. In addition, Somech’s (2003) research (2003), in conjunction with the leader-member exchange model, suggests that individual differences between leaders and subordinates also influence leadership style, the greater the differences, the less likely the leader is to implement participative management. In other words, the quality of the relationship between the leaders and the subordinates may influence the leaders’ management style. On this basis, Chen and Tjosvold (2006) also confirmed the idea that leader-member exchange quality is a key influence on participative management. The study further points out that cooperation, compared with competitiveness and independence, is an important basis for high-quality leader-member exchange, and the resulting leader-member relationships improve individual confidence and overcome cross-cultural differences, thus effectively enhancing participative management.

Organizational-Level Antecedents

Based on existing research, it is easy to understand the important role that personal factors play in predicting leadership styles in managerial roles. However, there can be significant differences in the way individuals lead in different contexts, as individuals in different situational organizations actively socialize by choosing to behave in a way that matches the context in which they are placed. There is no doubt that organizational context becomes a key factor in influencing leadership behaviors and styles ( Schneider, 1983 ). For example, leaders in small-scale societies living in primitive nomadic, hunter-gatherer societies were particularly focused on participative decision-making management, whereas in the era of intensive agricultural societies, as group size increased, participative decision-making management in small-scale societies often became ineffective, while increased social complexity and distortions in the distribution of power made organizational leaders rarely demonstrate participative management and instead gave rise to directive leadership ( Lonati, 2020 ). At the same time, an organizational culture that is acceptable and supportive of participative management in the workplace is also key to the development of participative leadership ( Huang et al., 2011 ). Bullough and De (2015) also analysed this in-depth and state that the social environment significantly increases the effectiveness of participative leadership based on the implicit leadership theory of cultural identity.

Mechanisms of Participative Leadership

We find that participative leadership, based on different theories from the social sciences, has significantly different effects on organizational employees through different mechanisms (mediators and moderators). First, based on social exchange theory, participative leadership influences employees by promoting their job prosperity and mutual help behavior ( Usman et al., 2021 ). Second, conservation of resources theory suggests that participative leadership would change employee behaviors in two different ways, increasing employee workload and improving organizational self-esteem ( Peng et al., 2021 ). Third, research based on social cognitive theory confirms that participative leadership increases employees’ self-efficacy and psychological security, which in turn affects employees’ innovation and performance ( Zou et al., 2020 ). Fourth, social information processing theory implies that the process of participative leadership affecting employee behaviors may be influenced by cultural values and other aspects ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). Fifth, drawing on implicit leadership theory, leaders’ information-sharing behaviors can moderate the relationship between participative leadership and employee performance ( Lam et al., 2015 ).

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory has become an essential theory in researching the relationship between leaders and subordinates’ work attitudes and behaviors ( Miao et al., 2014 ). Some scholars had pointed out that Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) is to some extent reciprocal, and that supportive behaviors by the leader in an exchange relationship makes the subordinate feel obliged to reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors. In this way, social exchange theory, to a certain extent, provides a powerful explanation for participative leadership research. Because participative leaders encourage employees to express their personal views and opinions, actively give them the power to make decisions about their work, more respect and information resources to facilitate their participation in organizational decision-making, these signals of concern and support lead employees to perceive favors from their leaders, which in turn leads them to adopt a series of behaviors in return for their leaders ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ). Despite the uncertainty of social exchange, most subordinates will respond positively to the participative management behaviors of their leaders based on the normative principle of reciprocity. Because the process of leaders consulting employees before making decisions makes a positive social exchange relationship, employees tend to perform better at work. Based on social exchange theory, Usman et al. (2021) also confirmed that employees encouraged by participative leadership behaviors performed better in terms of job prosperity and took the initiative to offer help to others.

Conservation of Resources Theory

COR recognizes that individuals have limited resources and that personal resources must be acquired, preserved and maintained on an ongoing basis. “Resources” is a broad term that includes not only the objects (e.g., pay), conditions (e.g., organizational status) and energy that individuals value in achieving their goals, but also individual characteristics. Of these, individual characteristics are seen as important resources that further influence how employees deal with other changes in their resources ( Hobfoll and Shirom, 2001 ). For example, participative management may lead to higher performance goals for highly committed employees and less effort for less committed employees to conserve resources ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). That is, different individuals hold different amounts and types of available resources and respond differently to the problems they face in work. It is important to note that, according to resource conservation theory, individuals are naturally motivated to acquire and maintain the resources that are more important to them. And as a result of this motive, individual resources may undergo two distinct changes in resource gain or resource loss, where resource gain indicates that the initial resource gainer is more capable of acquiring the resource, and resource loss refers to an initial threat to the resource that tends to lead to increased resource loss ( Halbesleben et al., 2014 ). Therefore, Peng et al. (2021) specifically highlighted that, according to resource conservation theory, participative leaders may have different impacts on employee resources through the two pathways described above. First, participative management provides employees with certain resources, resulting in various degrees of increase in employees’ sense of value and self-esteem, thus triggering resource gains. Second, participative management adds extra workloads to employees, thus triggering resource losses. In conclusion, resource conservation theory reasonably explain the effect of participative leadership on subordinates’ work behaviors.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory has found that the external environment, cognitive factors and individual behavior interact with each other, and individuals adjust their cognition according to the information they receive from the external environment, so as to display and maintain behavior patterns that match their own cognition ( Bandura, 1978 ). That is, people can learn indirectly by observing, accurately perceiving the behavior of others and extracting information from it. And in leadership research, employee behavior is a product of perceptions of the environment. As a specific external environment, the messages conveyed by participative leadership style are an important part of employees’ daily contact in the workplace, and by observing and interpreting such messages, employees would change their perceptions of their own abilities and thus adopt behaviors that are consistent with them ( Zou et al., 2020 ). For example, research by Fatima et al. (2017) based on social cognitive theory finds that participative leadership, as one of the important environmental factors, is easier for employees with higher achievement needs to access environmental information and to apply and transform it during the influence of participative leadership on the creativity of their subordinates. Furthermore, within the research framework of the environment-cognition-behavior, participative leadership has been found to be effective in enhancing employees’ self-efficacy (perceptions of self-efficacy) and psychological security (perceptions of the interpersonal environment), contributing significantly to employees’ innovation and performance ( Zou et al., 2020 ). There is no doubt that social cognitive theory provides a new theoretical perspective and research framework for understanding the influence of participative leadership on employee behavior.

Social Information Processing Theory

SIP is concerned with the influence of the work environment on individual behaviors and work outcomes. It aims to reveal that individuals in organizations with a high degree of environmental adaptability actively or passively acquire information from the internal environment and process it according to certain rules to control their own attitudes and behaviors ( Gao et al., 2021 ). And SIP effectively explains individual behavioral change and provides a solid theoretical basis for describing participative leaders’ implementation of participative management. For example, research based on social information processing theory emphases that subordinates’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes are influenced by information about their surroundings, such as values, norms and expectations from society ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). Leaders, in turn, are a key source of information for employees to access, and this information will collectively shape employees’ beliefs. That is, from a social information processing perspective, repeated observations of the leader’s style can enable employees to construct participative decision-making behaviors that the leader appreciates and encourages ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ). Further, research on this theory has found that participative decision-making not only informs employees about the occurrence of behaviors, but even facilitates the transformation of attitudes toward work ( Somech, 2010 ). It is important to note, however, that when cultural values differ, individuals may weigh information that encourages participation in decision-making and thus increase or decrease the impact of such information on their work ( Zhang et al., 2011 ). In particular, the impact that participative management by leaders may have on employees is particularly significant in large-power-distance cultures. It is easy to see that participative management messages originating from the leader are likely to be socially constructed among group members so that employees will agree on the process of working in a particular domain environment and thus adopt organizationally supported behaviors ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ).

Implicit Leadership Theory

The implicit leadership theory, derived from cognitive psychology, emphasizes the expectations and beliefs of employees about the competencies that leaders should possess, and is an “internal label” that distinguishes leaders from non-leaders, effective leaders from ineffective leaders ( Lu et al., 2008 ). In summary, leadership effectiveness in the study of implicit leadership theory does not emphasis the outcome of leadership behavior or focus on the control of situations, but exists in the minds of subordinates as a schema of their perceptions of the leader. Furthermore, if the participative leadership does not send out strong enough signals to stimulate employees to participate in decision-making in line with expectations of participative management, this can prevent the activation of the “participation model” in subordinates. In such cases, employees are more inclined to stick with the status quo and do not respond positively to the participative leader until they perceive that the leader’s participative behaviors have reached a certain threshold level ( Lam et al., 2015 ). It has also been suggested that organizational culture is likely to change the effectiveness of participative leadership, as individuals influenced by their environment shape leader’s expectations, while research based on implicit leadership theory provides insight into how individual perceptions influence effective leader’s behaviors ( Bullough and De, 2015 ). This not only reflects the important role of the theory in participative leadership research, but also provides a sound framework for a better understanding the cross-cultural organizational behavior ( Huang et al., 2011 ).

The Consequences of Participative Leadership

Compared to the antecedents of participative leadership, the consequences can also be divided into the individual level and the organizational level. A lot of studies have focused on employee organizational commitment and voice behavior and so on at an individual level ( Miao et al., 2014 ). In particular, some scholars had found that the participative leadership is positively related to employee mental health, voice behavior, and creativity ( Somech, 2010 ; Fatima et al., 2017 ; Usman et al., 2021 ). In addition, the participative leadership improves performance and innovation at the organizational levels ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ).

Individual-Level Outcomes

The impact of participative leadership on subordinates stems from the leader’s empowerment and the consequent changes in psychology, attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of employees. First, on the psychological front, numerous studies have shown that participative leadership is beneficial to the psychological well-being of an organization’s employees. However, over-reliance on participative management by leaders can also have a negative impact on employees to some extent. In particular, the increased work challenges and responsibilities associated with participative management at work can be more or less burdensome for some employees, resulting in psychological stress ( Benoliel and Somech, 2014 ). Second, in terms of attitude, because participative leadership makes subordinates feel psychologically empowered, it increases the organizational commitment of some employees and even shows complete emotional trust in the leader ( Miao et al., 2014 ). However, it is essential to note that participative leadership has no significant role in influencing employees’ perceived trust. Then, in terms of behavior, Sagnak (2016) noted that leaders who implement participative management significantly increase employees’ change-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors by motivating their subordinates, such as helpfulness among employees at work ( Usman et al., 2021 ). In addition, participative leadership has been a significant contributor to the organizational focus on employee innovation and voice building, and has been supported by numerous scholars ( Xiang and Long, 2013 ). Finally, in terms of outcomes, existing research suggests that participative leadership plays an important role in both the increase in employee performance and the improvement of individual competencies. In terms of current research on job performance, there has been a great deal of scholarly attention paid to subordinate work outcomes and indirectly related job prosperity ( Somech, 2010 ; Usman et al., 2021 ). And on individual employee competencies, creativity has become the focus of the work of some scholars in participative leadership research ( Fatima et al., 2017 ).

Organizational-Level Outcomes

Overall, participative management is gradually becoming an important management initiative for current organizational management practitioners, and participative leadership is undoubtedly a key leadership style that cannot be ignored in leadership research. And most scholars agree that participative leadership has a catalytic effect on organizations. For example, some scholars had analyzed that participative leadership significantly improves organizational performance and innovation ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ). Further, and this is confirmed by Somech’s (2010) research (2010) based on the education sector, participative management has a clear driving effect on the organizational performance in higher education. However, the positive effects of participative leadership are inevitably accompanied by some negative effects ( Peng et al., 2021 ). In this regard, Li et al. (2018) argued, by comparing research on directive leadership, that while participative leadership has a positive impact on organizational creativity, it reduces organizational effectiveness to a certain extent. It is easy to see that the impact of participative leadership style on the organizational level is somewhat unique and complicated. In addition, numerous studies have shown that there may be a series of mediating or interacting effects of participative leadership on organizational performance and corporate capabilities ( Kahai et al., 2004 ; Yan, 2011 ). Among the various research on the effects of participative leadership, it’s particularly critical to emphasize that the fact that participative leadership affects organizations by influencing employees at the individual level has become a consensus in current theoretical research and has prompted a large number of scholars to conduct in-depth studies on the subject ( Kim and Schachter, 2015 ).

Future Research

At present, whether in management practice or theoretical research, there is still a large research space for participative leadership, which needs to be further explored by scholars. Therefore, we prospecte and incorporate some views into the analysis framework (shown in Figure 1 ).

First, most of the existing literature on this leadership style is based on some of the questions in research on empowered leadership, and is still in use today ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). However, the measurement of participative leadership is rather general, focusing on characteristics and behaviors, and lacks a deeper exploration of the psychological dimension ( Arnold et al., 2000 ). With the development of the information technology and the continuous changes in leadership practice, the existing research has not formed a new understanding of the content of the participative leadership style, either in terms of the form of participative leadership or its measurement, so that the development of the theory is difficult to match the current leadership management practice, and some scholars had even appeared to be critical of participative leadership ( Gwele, 2008 ). In other words, previous interpretations of participative leadership have hindered the future research and application of this theory. It is easy to see that the conceptual content of participative leadership theory still has a lot of space to be added and optimised, and that subsequent research needs to take a more comprehensive view of the theory. Therefore, there is an urgent need for theoretical research on participative leadership to be further summarised through more scientific and rigorous analytical methods, such as experimental methods, in order to effectively classify the dimensions of participative leadership according to its modern manifestations and to develop a more mature scale for the measurement of constructs.

Second, previous research suggests that participative leadership might be seen as a rational response by leaders to organizational decisions and employee needs ( Zhao et al., 2019 ). However, participative leaders may also be subject to both internal and external pressures to implement participative management. As research in self-determination theory has shown, individual motivation is divided into autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Whereas autonomous motivation refers to the individual’s action as a result of matching the activity with his or her values, goals, etc., control motivation emphasizes the behavioral activities that the individual is forced to take as a result of external pressures ( Gagné and Deci, 2005 ). Therefore, the antecedents of participative leadership can be studied in detail in the future based on self-determination theory. On the one hand, the influence of individual values, goals and interests on their own management behaviors is analyzed in the light of autonomous motivation; on the other hand, the dual pressure of the internal environment (e.g., professional managerial system) and the external environment (e.g., market uncertainty) places high demands on the scientific and accurate decision-making of leaders, which undoubtedly increases their motivation to control and thus to take part in management in order to avoid the risk of dictatorship that could lead to major risks or losses. At the same time, the theory of planned behavior suggests that individual behavior is determined by their own intentions and perceptual behavioral control ( McEachan et al., 2011 ). Some scholars have found that individual behavioral intentions are positively influenced by their behavioral attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, respectively. That is, they are more likely to engage in participative management if leaders maintain an optimistic attitude toward it, have the support of their employees and believe they can successfully implement it. This suggests that the theory of planned behavior also plays a key role in the antecedents of participative leadership research.

Third, throughout the current research on the results of participative leadership, many scholars have paid attention on the effects at the individual level, such as happiness at work, employee performance, etc. ( Chen and Tjosvold, 2006 ). And there is still more room for research on the analysis of results relative to the organizational level, especially on aspects such as organizational change. As a particular form of group decision-making, participative leadership may have a beneficial effect on smaller organizational changes. However, when faced with large organizational changes, employees may be concerned about career risks and may be a deterrent to smooth organizational change in the process of participation in decision-making. Moreover, much of existing research has focused on the positive effects of participative leadership. However, the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect (TMGTE) also plays a key role in organizational leadership research and cannot be ignored. This effect suggests that over-implementation of a behavior is likely to have potentially negative influences. From this perspective, leaders who practice high levels of participative leadership and over-empower employees to participate in organizational decision-making can lead to the TMGTE. In particular, the dual-task processing effect, whereby participative leaders delegate more power or tasks to subordinates in organizational decision-making, significantly increases the amount and variety of work performed by employees, and reduces employee well-being ( Peng et al., 2021 ). Therefore, a deeper analysis of the formation mechanism of the negative effects of participative leadership can be carried out, and a theoretical framework on the motives, concrete manifestations and path mechanisms of its behavior can be systematically constructed, with a view to providing strategies and suggestions for leaders to make scientific and practical decisions.

Fourth, both management practice and academic studies suggest that participative leaders’ management may be more likely to attract individuals with higher motivation and values to join the organization and, by effectively enhancing the identity of the organization’s members, to successfully implement participative management initiatives, which in turn may evolve into a more integrated and holistic decision-making mechanism covering all employees of the organization ( Odoardi et al., 2019 ). Thus, future research could analyze the mediating effect of organizational identity in the relationship between participative leadership and influence effects based on social identity theory, and further explore other aspects of mediation mechanisms. It’s also worth noting that the relationship between participative leadership and subordinates’ behavioral performance is also influenced by a number of variables, in particular the organizational context (e.g., systems and culture) and individual differences (e.g., subordinates’ regulatory orientation characteristics). As most organizations are now actively building workplaces that attract and retain employees, and as organizations flatten, the culture and systems are more participative, the idea of employee participation in organizational decision-making is being accelerated at all levels of the organization ( Somech, 2010 ; Lythreatis et al., 2019 ). In addition, if employees exhibit promotion focus (prevention focus), they may maintain a positive (negative) attitude toward the leader’s participative management, which also affects to a certain extent the effectiveness of the leadership participative management when implemented. In conclusion, the exploration of the intrinsic mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions of the effects of participative leadership is conducive to revealing the operational mechanisms and mechanisms of action of participative management, promoting the integration of relevant factors into a more unified framework and enriching the theoretical research of participative leadership.

Finally, as a type of democratic leadership style, although participative management has attracted the attention of some Chinese scholars. However, influenced by China’s thousands of years of history and culture, long-term authoritarian rule has caused individuals to lack a sense of independence, and employees have shown dependence and submissiveness to their leaders. Therefore, participative leadership has not received much attention from Chinese scholars. However, as the new generation of employees, such as the post-90s generation and post-00s generation, is flooding into various positions in enterprises and institutions, more and more employees are showing strong values of independence and freedom. The practice has also shown that the new generation of employees is active, receptive to information and innovative, and that participation in management not only helps to avoid the negative emotions of employees due to the dictatorship of the leader, but also facilitates the absorption of new ideas and information by the leader, and produces innovative results, which proves the urgent need for participation in leadership in the Chinese society. This is an important signal for Chinese scholars to localize the researches of participative leadership in the context of Chinese society, as western thought is constantly impacting on traditional Chinese culture and organizations in western countries are placing more emphasis on participation in decision-making than China, and are actively taking several measures to this end. Although empirical research on participative leadership has started to gradually increase in recent years, there is still more room for development ( Zou et al., 2020 ). For example, research related to differential leadership based on the question of whether there are differences in the rights of participative leaders to involve different subordinates in organizational decision-making. In particular, leaders who have long been influenced by traditional Chinese culture are prone to self-perception based on closeness of relationships and classify subordinates as insiders and outsiders, resulting in significant differences in access to decision-making authority for different employees.

As the market becomes increasingly competitive, it is difficult for leaders to make effective decisions independently. As a result, participative leadership is becoming an important element in leadership research. Scholars are also aware of the need to implement participative management in organizational decision-making. In terms of current theoretical research, there are elements of participative leadership that can be further developed and explored. From the perspective of management decisions in practice, participative leadership has dramatically improved the effectiveness of leadership decisions. This study systematically sorts out the concept and measurement of participative leadership and compare it with empowering leadership and directive leadership. We not only discuss the antecedents and outcomes of participative leadership, but also provide an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms by which participative leadership influences employees based on social exchange theory, social cognitive theory, resource conservation theory, implicit leadership theory, and social information processing theory. Finally, we propose a framework for future research on participative leadership that encompasses five potential research areas, including connotation, antecedents, outcomes, mediators and moderators, and study of participative leadership in China.

Through a systematic review of research related to participative leadership, this study makes several contributions to the development of participative leadership as follows. First, we clarify the concept, measurement, antecedents, theoretical foundations, and results of participative leadership to lay the foundation for subsequent participative leadership research. Second, we systematically compare participative leadership with directive and empowering leadership, distinguish the similarities and differences among the three, and clarify the unique research value of participative leadership. Third, by reviewing previous research on participative leadership and taking into account current leadership trends, we propose several future research perspectives, thus exploring what is currently neglected by scholars.

Author Contributions

QW mainly made important contributions in clarifying the idea of the article, selecting the research method, literature collection, and article writing. HH made substantial contributions to literature collection, article revision, and optimization. ZL mainly played a crucial role in literature collection. All authors made outstanding contributions to this research.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

This research was supported by the State Key Program of National Social Science of China (Project Number # 20AZD095).

• Amundsen S., Martinsen O. L. (2014). Empowering leadership: construct clarification, conceptualization, and validation of a new scale. Leadersh. Q. 25 487–511. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arnold J. A., Arad S., Drasgow F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: the construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. J. Organ. Behav. 21 249–269. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21:3<249::AID-JOB10>3.0.CO;2-\# [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura A. (1978). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Adv. Behav. Res. Ther. 1 139–161. 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benoliel P., Somech A. (2014). The health and performance effects of participative leadership: exploring the moderating role of the big five personality dimensions. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 23 277–294. 10.1080/1359432X.2012.717689 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Black G. (2020). The Vital Connection of Self-Awareness to Ethical and Participative Leadership:in the Decision Making Processes. San Diego: Alliant International University. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bullough A., De L. M. S. (2015). Women’s participation in entrepreneurial and political leadership: the importance of culturally endorsed implicit leadership theories. Leadersh 11 36–56. 10.1177/1742715013504427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chan S. (2019). Participative leadership and job satisfaction: the mediating role of work engagement and the moderating role of fun experienced at work. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 40 319–333. 10.1108/LODJ-06-2018-0215 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chang Y. Y., Chang C. Y., Chen Y. C. K., Seih Y. T., Chang S. Y. (2021). Participative leadership and unit performance: evidence for intermediate linkages. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 19 355–369. 10.1080/14778238.2020.1755208 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chen Y. F., Tjosvold D. (2006). Participative leadership by American and Chinese managers in china:the role of relationships. J. Manage. Stud. 43 1727–1752. 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00657.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fatima T., Safdar S., Jahanzeb S. (2017). Participative leadership and employee creativity: moderating role of need for achievement. NUML Int. J. Bus. Manage. 12 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné M., Deci E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Organ. Behav. 26 331–362. 10.1002/job.322 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao P., Xue P., Xie Y. (2021). Influence of self-monitoring personality on innovation performance from information processing perspective. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 38 151–160. 10.6049/kjjbydc.2020040203 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gwele N. S. (2008). Participative leadership in managing a faculty strategy. South Afr. J. Higher Educ. 22 322–332. 10.4314/sajhe.v22i2.25788 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Halbesleben J. R. B., Neveu J. P., Paustian-Underdahl S. C., Westman M. (2014). Getting to the “cor”: understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. J. Manag. 40 1334–1364. 10.1177/0149206314527130 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hobfoll S. E., Shirom A. (2001). Conservation of resources theory: applications to stress and management in the workplac. Public Policy Adm. 87 57–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang S. Y. B., Li M. W., Chang T. W. (2021). Transformational leadership, ethical leadership, and participative leadership in predicting counterproductive work behaviors: evidence from financial technology firms. Front. Psychol. 12 :658727. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.658727 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang X., Iun J., Liu A., Gong Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? the differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. J. Organ. Behav. 31 122–143. 10.1002/job.636 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang X., Rode J. C., Schroeder R. G. (2011). Organizational structure and continuous improvement and learning: moderating effects of cultural endorsement of participative leadership. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 42 1103–1120. 10.1057/jibs.2011.33 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang X., Shi K., Zhang Z., Cheung Y. L. (2006). The impact of participative leadership behavior on psychological empowerment and organizational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The moderating role of organizational tenure. Asia. Pac. J. Manage. 23 345–367. 10.1007/s10490-006-9006-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jia S., Qiu Y., Yang C. (2021). Sustainable development goals, financial inclusion, and grain security efficiency. Agron 11 :2542. 10.3390/agronomy11122542 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jing Z., Jianshi G., Jinlian L., Yao T. (2017). A case study of the promoting strategies for innovation contest within a company. Sci. Res. Manage. 38 57–65. 10.19571/j.cnki.1000-2995.2017.11.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahai S. S., Sosik J. J., Avolio B. J. (1997). Effects of leadership style and problem structure on work group process and outcomes in an electronic meeting system environment. Pers. Psychol. 50 121–146. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00903.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahai S. S., Sosik J. J., Avolio B. J. (2004). Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group Organ. Manage. 29 67–105. 10.1177/1059601103252100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim C., Schachter H. L. (2015). Exploring followership in a public setting: is it a missing link between participative leadership and organizational performance? Am. Rev. Public. Adm. 45 436–457. 10.1177/0275074013508219 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lam C. K., Huang X., Chan S. C. H. (2015). The threshold effect of participative leadership and the role of leader information sharing. Acad. Manage. J. 58 836–855. 10.5465/amj.2013.0427 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Li G., Liu H., Luo Y. (2018). Directive versus participative leadership: dispositional antecedents and team consequences. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 91 645–664. 10.1111/joop.12213 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Likert R. (1961). New Patterns of Management. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonati S. (2020). What explains cultural differences in leadership styles? on the agricultural origins of participative and directive leadership. Leadersh. Q. 31 :101305. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lorinkova N. M., Pearsall M. J., Matthew J. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Acad. Manage. J. 56 573–596. 10.5465/amj.2011.0132 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lu H. Z., Liu Y. F., Xu K. (2008). Implicit leadership theory: a new development of cognitive revolution in leadership research. Psychol. Sci. 31 242–244. 10.3969/j.issn.1671-6981.2008.01.058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lythreatis S., Mostafa A. M. S., Wang X. (2019). Participative leadership and organizational identification in smes in the mena region: testing the roles of csr perceptions and pride in membership. J. Bus. Eth. 156 635–650. 10.1007/s10551-017-3557-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McEachan R. R. C., Conner M., Taylor N. J., Lawton R. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 5 97–144. 10.1080/17437199.2010.521684 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miao Q., Newman A., Huang X. (2014). The impact of participative leadership on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior: distinguishing between the mediating effects of affective and cognitive trust. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 25 2796–2810. 10.1080/09585192.2014.934890 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Odoardi C., Battistelli A., Montani F., Peiró J. M. (2019). Affective commitment, participative leadership, and employee innovation: a multilevel investigation. Rev. Psicol. Trabajo. Organ. 35 103–113. 10.5093/jwop2019a12 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oldham G. R., Cummings A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manage. J. 39 607–634. 10.2307/256657 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peng J., Zou Y. C., Kang Y. J., Zhang X. (2021). Participative leadership and employee job well-being: perceived co-worker support as a boundary condition. J. Psychol. Sci. 44 873–880. 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210415 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sagnak M. (2016). Participative leadership and change-oriented organizational citizenship: the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Egit. Arast. 103 717–722. 10.1016/j.pbb.2012.12.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schneider B. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 5 1–31. 10.21236/ada113432 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Somech A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: an investigation of multiple dimensions. Educ. Admin. Q. 38 341–371. 10.1177/00161X02038003004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Somech A. (2003). Relationships of participative leadership with relational demography variables: a multi-level perspective. J. Organ. Behav. 24 1003–1018. 10.1002/job.225 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Somech A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools:a mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educ. Admin. Q. 46 174–209. 10.1177/1094670510361745 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Su Y., Li Z., Yang C. (2021). Spatial interaction spillover effects between digital financial technology and urban ecological efficiency in China: an empirical study based on spatial simultaneous equations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 :8535. 10.3390/ijerph18168535 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tang G. Y., Li P. C., Li J. (2012). A review of frontier research of foreign empowering leadership and future prospects. For. Econ. Manage. 34 73–80. 10.16538/j.cnki.fem.2012.09.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Usman M., Ghani U., Cheng J., Farid T., Iqbal S. (2021). Does participative leadership matters in employees’ outcomes during COVID-19? role of leader behavioral integrity. Front. Psychol. 2021 :646442. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646442 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vroom V. H. (1959). Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 59 322–327. 10.1037/h0049057 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xiang C. R., Long L. R. (2013). Participative leadership and voice: the mediating role of assertive impression management motive. Manage. Rev. 25 156–166. 10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2013.07.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yan J. (2011). An empirical examination of the interactive effects of goal orientation, participative leadership and task conflict on innovation in small business. J. Dev. Entrep. 16 393–408. 10.1142/S1084946711001896 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhang Z., Wang M., Fleenor J. W. (2011). Effects of participative leadership: the moderating role of cultural values. Acad. Manage. Proc. 30 1–6. 10.5465/AMBPP.2011.65869732 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao C., Tang C. Y., Zhang Y. S., Niu C. H. (2019). Task conflict and talent aggregation effect in scientific teams: the moderating effects of participative leadership. Sci. Manage. Res. 37 56–60. 10.19445/j.cnki.15-1103/g3.2019.05.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zou Y. C., Peng J., Hou N. (2020). Participative leadership and creative performance: a moderated dual path model. J. Manage. Sci. 33 39–51. 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0334.2020.03.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Is Democratic Leadership the Best Style of Leadership?

When and how to use democratic leadership effectively

Verywell / Hugo Lin

• Characteristics

Are You a Democratic Leader?

Frequently asked questions.

Democratic leadership, also known as participative leadership or shared leadership, is a leadership style in which members of the group participate in the decision-making process. This type of leadership can apply to any organization, from private businesses to schools to the government.

With a democratic leadership style, everyone is given the opportunity to participate, ideas are exchanged freely, and discussion is encouraged. While this process tends to focus on group equality and the free flow of ideas, the democratic leader is still there to offer guidance and control.

The democratic leader is also charged with deciding who is in the group and who gets to contribute to the decisions being made. Research has found that the democratic leadership style is one of the most effective types and leads to higher productivity, better contributions from group members, and increased group morale.

Key Characteristics of Democratic Leadership

Some of the primary characteristics of democratic leadership include:

• Collaboration : Democratic leaders really encourage group members to share ideas and opinions. Even though the leader retains the final say over decisions, they do consider what members of the team have to offer.
• Engagement : This style of leadership really helps members of the group feel more engaged in the process.
• Creativity : This type of leadership also encourages and rewards creativity and innovation.

Leaders who effectively use the democratic style tend to have specific traits, such as being team players, willing to adapt, having a fair mind, and being engaged in the process. Strong democratic leaders inspire trust and respect among their followers.

These leaders are sincere and make decisions based on their morals and values. They also tend to seek diverse opinions and do not try to silence dissenting voices or those that offer a less popular point of view. As a result, followers feel inspired to take action and contribute to the group.

Examples of Democratic Leadership

More than half of the countries in the world with populations over 500,000 people use a democratic leadership style. The United States is one. Sweden, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Korea, and the Netherlands are a few others.

Some businesses also operate with a democratic management style, offering a participative leadership approach. Google is often cited as an example, with its founders likening their leadership style to being "proud parents—offering advice and love, but not daily nagging!" Jack Dorsey, the former Twitter CEO, was also often credited with having the characteristics of a democratic leader.

You can also find examples of democratic leadership within school clubs and 4-H organizations. Tommy Lasorda, former manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers who won two World Series championships, is credited with being a participative leader in the sport of baseball.

Benefits of Democratic Leadership

Because group members are encouraged to share their thoughts, democratic leadership can lead to better ideas and more creative solutions to problems. More input from more people leads to a greater variety of ideas and opinions.

Group members feel more involved and committed to projects, making them more likely to care about the end results.

Research suggest that democratic leaders can pay off for groups and organizations. Groups led by democratic bosses tend to be more productive, and this way of leading has also been connected to increases in group morale.

One study also found that democratic leadership was associated with a better working relationship between employees and bosses.

More ideas and creative solutions

Group member commitment

High productivity

Improved group morale

Communication failures

Poor decision-making by unskilled groups

Minority or individual opinions overridden

Potential security issues

Potential Pitfalls of Democratic Leadership

Democratic leadership isn't right for every group or situation. While it has been described as the most effective leadership style, it does have some potential downsides.

In situations where roles are unclear or time is of the essence, democratic leadership can lead to communication failures and uncompleted projects.

In some cases, group members may not have the necessary knowledge or expertise to make quality contributions to the decision-making process . Democratic leadership can also result in team members feeling like their opinions and ideas aren't taken into account.

For a government or organization to be truly democratic requires the sharing of all the information. This can lead to potential security issues in some cases, making it another pitfall of using a democratic leadership style.

How to Use Democratic Leadership

Recognizing how and when to best use democratic leadership can make this style more effective. Some tips that can help you make the most of it include the following:

• Ensure people have skills to succeed : Democratic leadership works best in situations where group members are skilled and eager to share their knowledge.
• Make sure there is plenty of time : It is also important to have plenty of time to allow people to contribute, develop a plan, and then vote on the best course of action.
• Give everyone a chance to contribute : Because so many people are involved, setting deadlines can ensure you get everyone's input in enough time to act on it.
• Make your expectations clear : Providing expectations upfront can also be helpful, making it clear when the group's input will be sought and which decisions management will make on its own.

One study found that democratic leadership was more likely to inspire trust during transitional periods. In times of action, members were more likely to trust a more autocratic leader.

Try our fast and free quiz to find if you tend towards democratic leadership or one of the other styles.

Democratic leadership can be a highly effective style that inspires group morale and increases productivity. Like any other leadership style, there are pros and cons to being a democratic leader. Should you decide that this is the best style for you, following a few simple guidelines—such as managing time carefully and setting deadlines—can help make this an effective approach.

If you have enough time to follow a democratic process and your group's members can provide quality information, this is a good opportunity to use democratic leadership. It's also a good time to use a democratic management style if the decision you need to make doesn't involve revealing any private or confidential information.

Make it easy for all group members to share their thoughts and ideas. For a democracy to work, everyone has to feel as if they can give their opinion and know that it will be heard. Other ways to improve a democratic leadership style include being willing to listen , empowering group members to take action, and creating a cohesive decision-making process.

When all group members feel that they can contribute their thoughts and opinions, they may be more encouraged to take an active role in the process. This increased engagement leads to more creative ideas and higher levels of productivity. It also reduces the likelihood that team members will feel as if their contributions don't matter.

If you don't have enough time to collect everyone's input and act on it, this can lead to an ineffective democratic process. A democratic leadership style is also ineffective if the group members cannot contribute in a meaningful way or if the decision being made requires the dissemination of information that shouldn't be shared on a large scale.

Amanchukwu RN, Nwachukwu OP, Stanley GJ.  A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management . Management . 2015;5(1):6-14. doi:10.5923.j.mm.20150501.02

Khoshhal KI, Guraya SY. Leaders produce leaders and managers produce followers. A systematic review of the desired competencies and standard settings for physicians' leadership . Saudi Med J. 2016;37(10):1061-7. doi:10.15537/smj.2016.10.15620

St. Thomas University Online. What is democratic/participative leadership? How collaboration can boost morale .

Pew Research Center. Despite global concerns about democracy, more than half of countries are democratic .

Google blog. A letter from Larry and Sergey .

Michigan State University. Leadership styles part 2: democratic .

Romi MV, Alsubki N, Almadhi HM, Propheto A. The linkage between leadership styles, employee loyalty, and turnover intention in healthcare industry .  Front Psychol . 2022;13:890366. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.890366

International Institute for Management Development. The 5 leadership styles you can use .

Rosing F, Boer D, Buengeler C. When timing is key: How autocratic and democratic leadership relate to follower trust in emergency contexts .  Front Psychol . 2022;13:904605. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.904605

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Find out more about the AI Coaching Companion here

• Performance & Talent management

Leadership development

Democratic leadership style: how to effectively use it at work.

Many people think that the only way to lead a business is by being authoritarian. In other words, they think that there’s no other way to run things except for telling everyone what to do, when to do it and how to do it. But times have changed, and this kind of leadership style is just not effective in today’s business world. Employees have become much more independent, both individually and as a whole. As a result, it’s critical that leaders learn new leadership techniques adapted from democratic (as opposed to autocratic) leadership styles. This requires managers to be able to give their team members the freedom for creativity without giving them total control or destroying any type of hierarchy at all.

What is a democratic leadership style?

Examples of democratic leadership in the workplace, benefits of a democratic leadership style.

• Challenges of a democratic leadership style

Other types of leadership styles

How to implement the democratic leadership style.

The democratic leadership style is defined by collaboration, shared decision making and the equal distribution of power.

Democratic leaders take their team members’ opinions into account when making decisions. All employees are encouraged to share their ideas and have an equal say regardless of their titles and position in the company hierarchy. Managers encourage brainstorming and compromise and consider a diverse range of perspectives.

Examples of democratic leaders are President Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower (34th President of the United States), Nelson Mandela, Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), Muhtar Kent (CEO of Coca-Cola) and Larry Page (Cofounder of Google).

• Managers surround themselves with people who have different points of view and who can offer varied perspectives. They are not afraid to be challenged or to be wrong.
• Managers empower people around them and are not concerned with having all the power.
• Employees are encouraged to speak up in team meetings and share their ideas.
• Leaders have an open-door policy where employees can approach them for advice and voice concerns.
• Meetings are treated more like group discussions. Employees are organized into small groups to work on projects.
• Open communication is encouraged and a safe environment for sharing thoughts is created.
• Creates emotional fulfillment in those being led as they feel trusted and valued 
• Creates a sense of belonging within teams and higher group satisfaction  
• Develops skills of those being lead as they are given more responsibility to use their initiative and creativity 
• Increases respect for leaders as they are seen as fair and reasonable 
• Contributes to employee development as employees are challenged to find solutions and make decisions
• Increases employee retention through improved job satisfaction

Coaching for Middle Managers and High Potentials

Challenges of a democratic leadership style .

• Difficult during a crisis when problems need immediate attention
• Too many ideas being shared can cause some employees to feel devalued if their idea is not followed
• With multiple perspectives to consider, decision-making takes time and operations can be slowed down
• Some employees may not have the experience or expertise to make the right decisions 

There are many types of management styles to consider with even more being developed as the modern workplace evolves. Kurt Lewin’s research defined three prominent leadership styles: democratic, authoritarian and laissez-faire, determining that a democratic was most effective. Since then, with values shifting in the workplace more modern styles of leadership have emerged such as servant, transactional, transformational, charismatic, etc. The following list briefly evaluates some of the most popular leadership styles : 

Authoritarian 

• Opposite of democratic leadership
• Decisions made without input from the team 
• Useful when a business needs ultimate control ie. the military 
• Could cause a lack of initiative, creativity and an over-reliance on one leader
• Also called ‘Lassez-Faire’ 
• Almost all authority is given to employees
• Improves accountability and creates a relaxed work environment
• Employees make take advantage of the freedom and struggle when newly employed 
• Leader puts the development of their employees first 
• Creates a culture of service and knowledge sharing 
• Relies on leaders to have highly developed morals and few leaders have the experience necessary to be a servant leader

Transactional

• Based on motivating employees to perform by giving rewards and acknowledgments
• Gives clarity and structure, employees clearly know what is expected of them
• May lead to low creativity and doing the bare minimum 

Transformational 

• Leaders focus on inspiring employees to innovate and think in new ways
• Great during times of organizational change 
• May not take into account the difference in learning curves

Bureaucratic 

• Leadership is based on rules and company policies 
• Decisions prioritize existing rules over employee input
• Reduces favoritism and increases job predictability 
• Creates a lack of freedom and may reduce innovation

Mirror democratic leadership values in company values

Develop a company mission and vision statement that is clearly communicated to leadership and employees that echoes the values of the democratic leadership style. Equality, collaboration, idea sharing, diversity, teamwork and respect should be prominent in your company’s values. Communicating these values within the company will help the democratic leadership style to naturally emerge among leadership and teams. 

Employ a leadership coach 

Providing coaching to your leadership teams is arguably the most effective way to instill a certain leadership style. Chose a coach with experience and expertise in the democratic leadership style and work with them to curate a program to promote this style of leadership. Giving your leadership team the tools and knowledge to improve their skills as a leader will be vital in implementing this leadership style. 

Incentivized management 

Provide incentives for managers to follow a democratic leadership style. Encourage managers to engage their employees in decision-making, accept their ideas and hold team discussions when making decisions. Incentivize equality and diversity initiatives and reward teamwork and collaboration. Celebrating and acknowledging the practices that mirror the democratic leadership style will encourage it to grow within your organization. 

Include democratic leadership style training in onboarding 

Ensure the democratic leadership style is at the core of management onboarding . Newly hired managers must be aware of the importance of this style of management to the company and be given the tools to act in alignment with company values. If such values are instilled from the beginning it will be easy for this style to be followed as managers progress in their roles. 

In conclusion

Effectively following a democratic leadership style at work is about strongly communicating the same values and encouraging the practices of collaboration, idea-sharing and equality. It is important management be given the tools and opportunities to implement a democratic leadership style, such as leadership coaching. Working with a leadership coach can be a huge driver in implementing a new leadership style or reinforcing the current style. A democratic leader is one of the most well-respected and fair leaders and will have a meaningful contribution to company culture and productivity.

Accelerate leadership development across your organization

Cathy Stapleton Cathy is an Irish writer based in Berlin, Germany who is passionate about using words to inspire growth. As a certified mindfulness facilitator and performance coach, Cathy aims to create work that helps people connect with themselves and heighten their awareness. When she is not writing she is usually running in nature, meditating or contemplating an existential crisis.

Discover our categories

• Employee Experience & Well-being
• Organizational Transformation
• Performance & Talent management
• Professional coaching

Read more about: Performance and Talent management

First-time managers.

• Conquer One-on-One Meetings with This Foolproof Template
• The 7 Biggest Mistakes First-Time Managers Make That Drive Employees Away
• Leadership Development for a Multigenerational Workforce From Top HR and L&D Experts
• National Leadership Day: Reflecting on Our Untapped Potential To Lead
• The Impact of Charismatic Leadership on Organizational Transformation
• How To Effectively Lead the Modern Workforce With Situational Leadership
• Generativity vs. Stagnation: How To Increase Leadership Value and Contribution

Learning & Career development

From skills to success: the role of coaching in talent development.

• EAP 101: Maximizing the Value of Your Company’s Employee Assistance Program
• Capital Resources: How to Strengthen Your Intangible Assets
• Maximizing the Impact of Corporate Education: Strategies and Best Practices
• Human Capital: The Benefits of Investing Wisely

Leveraging collective intelligence

• The Power of Unity: How Group Coaching Empowers Teams
• The Analytical Architects: Mastering the Strengths of Type C Personalities at Work
• The Power of Collaborative Coaching: Transforming Teams for Success
• Type A Personalities and the Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Teams
• Delegating Tasks: The Key to Unlocking Your Team’s Potential

Middle managers & High potentials

• Managing Up: 7 Simple Steps to Success
• Manager in the Middle: The Challenges and Opportunities of Middle Management
• Can the Coaching Journey Be Enriched by Involving Line Managers?
• The Top 3 Challenges Executive-Level Managers Face and How to Overcome Them
• Line Manager Involvement in Coaching: Support or Resistance?

Productivity & Performance

• Maximizing Employee Potential: The Role of Performance Management Coaching
• Eliminating Unhealthy Employee Competition in the Workplace
• Redefining Systems for Employee Accountability
• The Power of Choice: How Autonomy Can Drive Employee Engagement and Productivity
• Ethics and Work Ethic: The Dynamic Duo for Success in Today’s Work Environment

Last Articles

Fostering a culture of continuous improvement: coaching for lean management, personalizing your coaching program: how to drive impact with coachhub’s coaching framework.

Client success stories

What to read next

Want to learn how coachhub can work for your business.

Request a demo now to learn more about the CoachHub digital coaching platform.

• Request demo

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Leadership styles

• Leadership and managing people
• Leadership development
• Leadership qualities
• Leadership transitions

How the Other Fukushima Plant Survived

• Ranjay Gulati
• Charles Casto
• Charlotte Krontiris
• From the July–August 2014 Issue

Leadership in Liminal Times

• Dan Pontefract
• October 10, 2014

Research: How Leadership Experience Affects Students

• Michael L Anderson
• February 21, 2017

How a CEO Can Create Psychological Safety in the Room

• Timothy R. Clark
• January 23, 2023

Preparing Your Business for a Post-Pandemic World

• Carsten Lund Pedersen
• Thomas Ritter
• April 10, 2020

5 Mistakes Employees Make When Challenging the Status Quo

• Carmen Medina
• November 24, 2016

How to Navigate Feelings of Confidence and Self-Doubt After a Promotion

• Nihar Chhaya
• October 23, 2023

How to Intervene When a Manager Is Gaslighting Their Employees

• Mita Mallick
• September 16, 2021

How to Support Employees' Learning Goals While Getting Day-to-Day Stuff Done

• Nick Gidwani
• August 01, 2017

Leadership When There Is No One to Ask: An Interview with ENI's Franco Bernabe

• Franco Bernabe
• Linda A. Hill
• Suzy Wetlaufer
• From the July–August 1998 Issue

Networking Doesn't Have to Be Self-Serving

• Rosabeth Moss Kanter
• March 06, 2020

The Countries with the Boldest Business Leaders

• Joseph Folkman
• Jack Zenger
• April 20, 2016

Pope Benedict XVI and the Leadership Issue No One Wants to Talk About

• Gretchen Gavett
• February 11, 2013

How to Lead Like a Coach

• James Elfer
• Zsofia Belovai
• September 06, 2024

The Top 20 Business Transformations of the Last Decade

• Scott D. Anthony
• Alasdair Trotter
• Evan I. Schwartz
• September 24, 2019

To Guide Difficult Conversations, Try Using Compassion

• Allison Rimm
• June 19, 2013

Why Best Practices Are Hard to Practice

• Ron Ashkenas
• November 10, 2010

How to Identify and Tell Your Most Powerful Stories

• Nancy Duarte
• June 21, 2018

Should Leaders Ever Swear?

• Daniel McGinn
• June 14, 2010

The Leader's Guide to Corporate Culture

• Boris Groysberg
• Jeremiah Lee
• Jesse Price
• J Yo Jud Cheng
• J. Yo-Jud Cheng
• From the January–February 2018 Issue

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Mental Toughness (with bonus interview "Post-Traumatic Growth and Building Resilience" with Martin Seligman)

• Harvard Business Review
• Martin E.P. Seligman
• Tony Schwartz
• Warren G. Bennis
• Robert J. Thomas
• January 09, 2018

The Lesbian and the Christian (A)

• R. Edward Freeman
• January 09, 2007

HBR's 10 Must Reads for CEOs (with bonus article "Your Strategy Needs a Strategy" by Martin Reeves, Claire Love, and Philipp Tillmanns)

• Martin Reeves
• Claire Love
• Philipp Tillmanns
• John P. Kotter
• May 14, 2019

Royal DSM: From Continuous Transformation to Organic Growth

• William W. George
• Carin-Isabel Knoop
• Amram Migdal
• January 30, 2017

Suicides at France Telecom

• Ulf Schaefer
• Konstantin Korotov
• May 19, 2014

The Good Struggle: Responsible Leadership in an Unforgiving World

• Joseph L. Badaracco Jr.
• October 08, 2013

Dr. Tom Mihaljevic and Cleveland Clinic

• Lydia Begag
• April 22, 2024

Becton Dickinson (B): Global Management

• Michael Beer
• Alistair D. Williamson
• June 15, 1991

Johannes Linden: Managing the Global Executive Committee

• Mark Rennella
• August 03, 2012

Cathy Benko: Winning at Deloitte (A)

• Deborah M. Kolb
• Cailin B. Hammer
• Kathleen L. McGinn
• September 28, 2006

Building a Community Organizing Organization: Serbia on the Move

• Laura Winig
• Marshall Ganz
• June 26, 2017

China: "To Get Rich Is Glorious"

• Robert E. Kennedy
• Richard H.K. Vietor
• Julia Galef
• November 17, 2006

Bozoma Saint John: Leading with Authenticity and Urgency (Multimedia Case)

• Francesca Gino
• Frances X. Frei
• June 07, 2021

Being Global: How to Think, Act, and Lead in a Transformed World

• Angel Cabrera
• Gregory Unruh
• April 17, 2012

The Drawbridge Drama

• Urs Mueller
• April 23, 2010

BW/IP International, Inc.

• Timothy A. Luehrman
• Andrew D. Regan
• November 19, 1992

Being the Boss, with a New Preface: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader

• Kent Lineback
• March 19, 2019

Alain St-Pierre: The Man Who Fought More Than Fire - Part C

• Cyrille Sardais
• Gabriel Tessier
• Jeremie Scraire-Laframboise
• May 10, 2018

Body Shop International

• Christopher A. Bartlett
• Kenton W. Elderkin
• Krista McQuade
• November 13, 1991

Managing Change at Axis Bank (A)

• Paul M. Healy
• Rachna Tahilyani
• March 28, 2014

Building and Maintaining Strategic Agility: An Agenda and Framework for Executive IT leaders

• Josh Morton
• Patrick Stacey
• Matthias Mohn
• November 01, 2018

The Fit Organization: How to Create a Continuous-Improvement Culture

• Daniel Markovitz
• January 01, 2016

Popular Topics

Partner center.