Explore whether leadership can only be done by one person. Discover why distributed and shared leadership models outperform solo leadership in complex organisations.
Written by Laura Bouttell • Thu 20th November 2025
The notion that leadership can only be done by one person is a persistent myth rooted in outdated theories and romanticised historical narratives. Whilst solo leadership remains a recognised approach, research consistently demonstrates that distributed, shared, and collective leadership models deliver superior outcomes in complex modern organisations. The lone hero at the helm makes for compelling storytelling, but it rarely reflects the messy reality of organisational success.
Solo leadership refers to a leadership style where a single individual assumes complete responsibility for guiding and directing a team or organisation towards common goals. This person makes key decisions, sets strategic direction, and bears ultimate accountability for outcomes. The model suggests leadership authority cannot be effectively divided or shared amongst multiple individuals.
This perspective stems from what researchers call the "Great Man Theory"—a 19th-century notion that leaders are born with inherent traits like superior intellect and natural authority. However, contemporary leadership scholarship has thoroughly dismantled this oversimplified view, revealing it as less a theory than a statement of faith that doesn't fit into rigorous academic discourse.
Technically, yes—one person can lead. Practically? It's rarely optimal.
Solo leadership exists as a legitimate approach, particularly in specific contexts: military operations requiring rapid tactical decisions, small entrepreneurial ventures where the founder's vision drives everything, or executive positions designed constitutionally for single occupancy (think of a Prime Minister or Chief Executive). Research indicates solo leaders may be useful for overcoming internal barriers and allowing decisions to be made and implemented urgently.
But the critical question isn't whether leadership can be done by one—it's whether it should be.
The consensus amongst leadership scholars is unequivocal: whilst solo leadership is possible, it is significantly less effective and sustainable than collaborative, team-based approaches. We cannot have leaders without followers, collaborators, and advisors. Leadership is never a solo endeavour—it requires collective organisational effort and accountability from top to bottom.
Why does this myth persist? The solo leader narrative taps into deep cultural archetypes: Churchill rallying Britain, Jobs resurrecting Apple, Nelson commanding at Trafalgar. These stories simplify complex organisational achievements into digestible narratives centred on singular figures. They're emotionally satisfying but historically misleading.
As Tolstoy argued in his philosophical critique of great men, these figures "are not great, nor do they drive the course of events: they merely think that they do, due to an incorrigible combination of conceitedness and incognizance." The myth ignores the collective efforts, collaborative processes, and contextual factors that enabled these leaders' successes.
No single individual possesses sufficient expertise to address the multifaceted challenges confronting contemporary organisations. The issues, obstacles and challenges organisations face cannot be solved through structures with solo leadership—solutions emerge from communicating with other individuals to facilitate successful agreements and decisions.
Complex knowledge work requires creativity, interdependence, and distributed expertise. Shared leadership has been identified as the optimal model when these knowledge characteristics are encountered. Solo leaders, regardless of capability, create bottlenecks that constrain innovative problem-solving.
Organisations built around solo leaders face existential risks. What happens when that person departs? Systems designed for distributed leadership demonstrate greater resilience and continuity.
Solo leadership often cultivates dependency rather than developing leadership capacity throughout the organisation. This creates what researchers call "learned helplessness"—teams waiting for direction rather than exercising initiative.
Despite its limitations, solo leadership offers advantages in specific circumstances:
When time constraints demand immediate action, solo leadership's streamlined decision-making becomes advantageous. Military operations exemplify this: a commanding officer must make quick choices impacting entire units without convening committees.
Certain roles are constitutionally designed for single occupancy. The President of the United States, for instance, functions as what we'd call a "solo leader" because that's how the position is structurally designed. Constitutional authority cannot be subdivided.
Early-stage entrepreneurial ventures often benefit from solo leadership. A founder's singular vision and direct control enable rapid iteration without administrative overhead. This simplicity allows entrepreneurs to focus on tasks directly relating to the business.
When one individual possesses dramatically superior expertise in a narrow domain, solo leadership may prove efficient. However, this advantage diminishes as organisational complexity increases.
Whilst often used interchangeably, these models differ subtly:
Distributed leadership allocates specific leadership roles to individuals based on their expertise. There's typically one designated leader who delegates tasks strategically. It emphasises giving people autonomy to innovate within defined domains.
Shared leadership distributes leadership responsibility more horizontally, where people within a team lead each other. Power and decision-making are equal amongst team members, emphasising collective ownership and empowerment.
Both contrast sharply with traditional vertical leadership residing predominantly with an individual rather than a group.
The empirical case for collective leadership approaches is compelling:
Not quite. Research indicates that coordinated efforts between focal leaders and emergent leaders produce the best outcomes for team effectiveness. Studies typically find shared leadership contributes to team performance beyond vertical leadership, but vertical leadership remains a significant contributor to success.
The optimal model isn't eliminating hierarchy—it's strategically combining vertical and horizontal leadership structures. Think of it as orchestral: a conductor provides overall direction whilst section leaders exercise authority within their domains.
Multiple perspectives reduce blind spots. Collaborative leadership incorporates diverse expertise, leading to more robust strategic choices. One person carrying sole responsibility cannot access the range of insights distributed leadership unlocks.
Whilst solo leadership can speed up individual decisions, collaborative approaches accelerate innovation cycles. Distributed leadership allows simultaneous exploration of multiple solution pathways rather than sequential evaluation by one person.
Distributed leadership creates redundancy in positive ways. When leadership capacity exists throughout the organisation, departure of any single individual—however talented—doesn't cripple operations.
Shared leadership models develop leadership capabilities across the organisation. Team members gain experience leading initiatives, building the organisational bench strength solo leadership models neglect.
Collaborative leadership cultivates psychological ownership. When team members genuinely share leadership responsibility, they demonstrate higher engagement, commitment, and accountability.
Where does leadership authority currently reside? Map decision-making power, strategic influence, and operational authority. You'll likely discover it's more concentrated than organisational charts suggest.
Which decisions genuinely require singular authority? Which could be effectively distributed? Most organisations discover far more opportunities for distributed leadership than initially assumed.
Distributed leadership requires skills beyond traditional management: facilitation, conflict navigation, collaborative decision-making. Investment in developing these capabilities throughout the organisation proves essential.
Formal structures shape informal behaviours. Consider governance mechanisms that institutionalise distributed leadership: cross-functional teams with genuine authority, rotating leadership roles, or collective decision-making protocols.
Executive teams must embody the principles they espouse. If your C-suite operates as a collection of individual fiefdoms rather than a genuinely collaborative leadership team, distributed leadership won't take root below.
This question surfaces inevitably: if leadership is shared, who's accountable when things go wrong?
The concern reflects a false dichotomy. Distributed leadership doesn't mean distributed accountability—it means distributed authority. Clear accountability structures remain essential, but they needn't require centralised authority.
Consider how effective sports teams operate. Rugby provides an apt British example: whilst the captain provides overall leadership, the scrum-half leads tactical decisions during play, the forwards leader directs set pieces, and defensive leaders organise structure. Each exercises authority in their domain. When the team loses, accountability remains clear—but leadership during the match is genuinely distributed.
The question "can leadership only be done by one?" presents a false choice. The reality is more nuanced: leadership can be done by one, but increasingly it must be done by many.
Organisational complexity has surpassed the cognitive capacity of individual leaders, regardless of capability. The knowledge, creativity, and adaptive capacity required to navigate contemporary business environments exceed what any solo leader can provide.
This doesn't diminish the importance of exceptional individual leaders—it reframes their role. Rather than heroic figures single-handedly driving organisational success, effective leaders orchestrate collective leadership processes. They create conditions where distributed leadership flourishes rather than hoarding authority.
No. Whilst solo leadership is possible in specific contexts (crisis management, small ventures, constitutionally singular roles), research consistently demonstrates that distributed, shared, and collective leadership models deliver superior outcomes in complex organisations. Leadership authority can be effectively shared amongst multiple individuals, leading to better decisions, faster innovation, and greater organisational resilience.
Solo leadership creates cognitive bottlenecks (one person lacks sufficient expertise for complex challenges), innovation barriers (creativity requires diverse perspectives), succession vulnerabilities (organisations become dependent on singular figures), and cultural limitations (teams develop dependency rather than initiative). The model also ignores followers' essential role in the leadership process.
Solo leadership proves appropriate in specific circumstances: urgent crisis decisions requiring immediate action, constitutionally singular roles (chief executives, military commanders), early-stage entrepreneurial ventures where founder vision drives strategy, and narrow domains where one individual possesses dramatically superior expertise. However, these situations represent exceptions rather than the norm.
Distributed leadership allocates specific leadership roles based on expertise, typically with one designated leader who delegates strategically. Shared leadership distributes power more horizontally, with equal decision-making amongst team members and collective ownership. Both contrast with traditional vertical leadership concentrated in one individual, though distributed leadership maintains clearer hierarchical structure.
No. Distributed leadership means distributed authority, not distributed accountability. Clear accountability structures remain essential. Effective distributed leadership models specify who holds ultimate accountability whilst distributing decision-making authority strategically. Think of rugby teams: leadership during play is genuinely distributed amongst captain, scrum-half, and position leaders, yet accountability for outcomes remains clear.
Begin by auditing where leadership authority currently concentrates. Identify decisions that could be effectively distributed without compromising accountability. Develop shared leadership capabilities (facilitation, collaborative decision-making, conflict navigation) throughout the organisation. Redesign governance structures to institutionalise distributed authority. Most importantly, model collaborative leadership at senior levels—distributed leadership won't take root if executive teams operate as individual fiefdoms.
No. The Great Man Theory—suggesting leaders are born with inherent traits—is now widely recognised as outdated and lacking scientific foundation. It oversimplifies leadership by ignoring context, environment, learning, and followers' roles. Contemporary leadership scholarship demonstrates that leadership is a dynamic process that can be developed through education, training, and experience, not merely an innate quality possessed by singular individuals.