“I ask everyone’s opinion when they don’t speak up.

And then,
when they have an opinion, I’ll ask others to talk about it.” – Ginny
Rometty
Democratic leadership is often confused with the idea of the political philosophy of
democracy. While the similarities are obviously there, the style also has its own unique
quirks and variations.

To understand democratic leadership, one must understand the balancing act of

allowing everyone to participate in decision-making and ensuring the organization
achieves its objectives.

© Shutterstock.com | Rawpixel.com

In this guide, we’ll explore the concepts around democratic leadership and the
characteristics that build the democratic leadership framework. We’ll also explore what
it requires from the leader before examining the benefits and downsides to the
style. Finally, we’ll look at the leadership model through a few examples of
democratic leaders.
UNDERSTANDING
THE DIFFERENT
CONCEPTS AROUND
DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP
Before we start examining the core characteristics of democratic leadership, it’s
auspicious to glance at the different concepts involved with the leadership style.
Essentially, to understand what democracy means and what are the foundations of the
democratic leadership theory.

What is democracy?
Democracy is a concept everyone is aware of and in order to understand how
democratic leadership works, you must comprehend the age-old theory of democracy.

The word democracy has it roots in Ancient Greece, which is where the concept of
democracy began. The word “democracy” means “rule by the (simple) people”. The
essential idea is that instead of someone ruling over people, such as in a tyranny or
oligarchy, the people hold the power to decide.

While the modern concept of democracy is dated back to the Ancient Athens of 508
B.C., the idea of ruling as a group has been around for much longer. In the broad sense
of the word, many tribes have organized around a village council and governed in a co-
operative manner.

The Greeks used democracy in different manners. Solon created the first constitutional
reforms by ending enslavement of the Athenians by fellow Athenians, and removed the
privilege-by-birth idea from the society. After Solon, the region experienced more
tyranny, but turned back to democratic governance under Cleisthenes and Ecclesia. In
fact, Athenians used the word ‘democracy’ for the first time under Cleisthenes’ rule.
 But it was the ideas of Socrates, Aristotle and Plato that finally gave birth to democracy
as a political philosophy. In his famous book Politics, Aristotle describes the benefits of
democracy:

“When states are democratically governed according to law, there

are no demagogues, and the best citizens are securely in the saddle;
but where the laws are not sovereign, there you find demagogues.
The people become a monarch…such people, in its role as a
monarch, not being controlled by law, aims at sole power and
becomes like a master.”
The Athenian democracy was not the representative democracy we know of today. For
one, women were not considered worthy of the vote. The idea faded into the
background for a while, with the Roman Empire introducing strongmen to rule once
more.

The modern democratic movement began in the 18th and 19th centuries, as philosophers
and scholars revived the ancient ideas and pushed them further. The first Parliament of
Great Britain was established in 1707 and the United States adopted the Constitution in
1787. Although the systems did not provide equal voting rights at the time, the events
began the move towards the modern liberal democracy.

The takeaway from the history of democracy is its building blocks:

 Separation of powers – executive, legislative and judicative

 The following of civil rights

 Religious liberties

 Separation of church and state

The democratic idea of power not in the hands of the few, but the many, slowly began
shifting out of the political sphere and into the world of business and leadership.

Defining democratic leadership

The early part of the 20th century witnessed more interest towards leadership. People
began examining what great leaders are about and whether different leadership
strategies exist. The idea of democratic leadership was one of the theories that popped
up during this time.
 The modern basis for the democratic leadership theory dates back to the studies done
in the 1930s and 1940s. Kurt Lewin, together with his colleagues R. Lippit and R.K.
White, determined three distinctive decision-making styles, which they thought were
closely linked with leadership. The three leadership styles included autocratic,
democratic and laissez faire and their decision-making methods are broadly outlined in
the image below:

The democratic style, also referred to as participative leadership, involved the

subordinates in the decision-making. The leader and the subordinates shared an equal
voice and these groups didn’t showcase hierarchy. The leadership style involved
appraisal of both the leader and the subordinates, with strong feedback structures
available.

Lewin et al. identified three core elements of democratic leadership:

 The leader would expect the subordinates to report to leaders regarding the task.

 The leader would expect the subordinates to exhibit self-confidence and the
ability to get things done without constant supervision.

 The leader would expect the subordinates to involve others in the decision-
making process and therefore not act alone.
In the experiments, the three separate styles were not only identified, but also
compared in terms of effectiveness. Among the subordinates, democratic leadership
style stood out as the most popular method and the style that achieved the most
effective results. According to the studies, under the more autocratic style, the
subordinates eventually started rebelling against authority, whilst the laissez faire
leadership didn’t lead to coherent results and objectives weren’t achieved efficiently.

While Lewin’s research on leadership has been highly influential, he and his colleagues
didn’t define democratic leadership with absolute clarity. In fact, according to John
Gastil, the model they proposed also had certain undemocratic implications. The
problem was the ambiguity of the definition, which allowed breathing room for different
levels of participation in the decision-making.

Daniel Goleman introduced his idea of democratic leadership as part of his six
leadership styles. According to Goleman, the democratic leadership is built around the
idea of consensus through collaboration. The leadership framework would bring people
together, enhance communication and sharing of ideas, with the team reaching a
consensus on the best approach forward. Goleman theorized that this would create an
 environment where employees feel more appreciated and therefore, committed to
achieving organizational objectives.

Aside from the two famous theories of democratic leadership, Sanghan Choi’s 2007
article published in the International Journal of Leadership Studies identified nearly 30
different definitions of democratic leadership. As we’ll see in the following sections, the
variety of definitions has caused confusion over what the democratic leadership truly
stands for.

Nonetheless, one of the most accurate and used definition comes from Gastil’s article A
Definition and Illustration of Democratic Leadership. To Gastil, democratic leadership is
about “distributing responsibility among the membership, empowering group members,
and aiding the group’s decision-making process”. It is these core functions, identified by
Gastil and others, which we move on to looking at in the next section.

THE CORE ELEMENTS

OF DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP
Despite some ambiguity in definition, most democratic leadership theories agree on a
core set of elements and functions. In this section, we will explore the core functions of
the framework and the building blocks required for creating a democratic leadership
structure at any situation.

Core functions
Let’s first examine the core functions of a democratic leadership framework. One of the
most commonly used set of democratic leadership functions came from Gastil’s 1994
article. In the article, Gastil outlined the three core elements you need for the framework
to work:

 The distribution of leadership.

 The empowerment of subordinates.

 The aiding of democratic decision-making in deliberations.

#1 The distribution of leadership
Obviously, the first major function of the framework has to be about distributing the
power. The democratic leadership requires an equally shared power structure, without
any hierarchy in decision-making. Gastil quoted Krech et al, who wrote in 1962, that the
leader must aim “to evoke maximum involvement and the participation of every member
in the group activities and in the determination of objectives”.

But the responsibility to share responsibilities doesn’t mean that each decision must
always be made within the group. Depending on the specific roles and responsibilities,
certain decisions might be only in the hands of the leader. This sort of framework refers
to the functionality of representative democracy. For example, a member of a national
parliament is allowed to make decisions based on his or her best judgment, with the
power provided by the voters of the member.

Each decision made must be done according to the expectations of the electorate and
the member has to be able to explain his decisions to the voter. Similarly, a leader might
have the power to make certain decisions, guaranteed that he or she is able to do it with
the approval of his or her subordinates.

Organizations must therefore carefully define the roles and distribute power in decision-
making according to these roles. The focus of it must aim for a democratic framework,
where no one person has concentrated power over others.

Decision-making is key for business leaders. Therefore, learn more about decisionship
and how to make the right decisions faster.

#2 The empowerment of subordinates

Another vital function of the leadership system is the ability to empower the
subordinates. In its simplest form, this happens through the distribution of
responsibilities and power to make decisions. Democratic leadership doesn’t
purely assume people should participate in decision-making, it actively requests people
to contribute.

Furthermore, the framework should focus on empowering subordinates through the

development of their skills. Since the leadership model requires people to be part of the
decision-making process, they should look for enhancing people’s skill set. This
includes things like public speaking, logical thinking and organizational skills, aside from
the pure professional abilities required within the specific industry.

The empowerment should also aim to help subordinates develop their psychological
abilities. But this should not be done through the traditional “great man” model,
according to Gastil. In his article, he quoted Adorno’s 1950 article, which said that
democratic leadership should never “manipulate the masses through shrewd
exploitation of their mentality”. This means that instead of focusing on the paternal
aspect of projecting an image of themselves to the subordinates, the democratic leader
should aim to genuinely develop the subordinate’s own skills and abilities.
#3 The aiding of democratic decision-making in
deliberations
The final core function of democratic leadership model revolves around the creation of
structures that support and encourage deliberation. According to Gastil, this can be
achieved “through constructive participation, facilitation, and the maintenance of healthy
relationships and a positive emotional setting”. If these are fostered, then the above two
functions are easier to achieve.

Essentially this requires problem solving to be done through analysis and group
deliberation. Solutions must reflect the group’s effort and understanding of the situation,
with a collective interest of the group being at the heart of the solution.

In terms of facilitation, the leader’s role is not to guide the decision itself, but rather
ensure there are structures for the process. In essence, the role is to oversee that the
process follows pre-set guidelines, which is important for effective decision-making. An
organization should create a schedule and process for making decisions, with the group
coming up with the solution. Therefore, the leader wouldn’t try to influence the outcome,
but he or she would ensure the decision is made within the right amount of time, for
example.

Gastil also highlights the importance of a healthy relationships and positive

environment, as essential aspects of the democratic leadership framework. The leader’s
role is to ensure new subordinates are assimilated to the organization and the team.
There’s also a strong requirement for acting as a mediator to ensure any issues within
subordinates are resolved quickly.

We learned that a positive work environment is key. Here is how you can create it.

The building blocks

To establish the framework for democratic leadership, there are certain aspects the
organization and leader should focus on. The main aspect of democratic leadership, as
we explained above is a participative environment. For this to occur, four elements
should be focused on.

First, it’s important to engage the whole team in terms of determining tasks and other
processes. Democratic framework works the best when the roles and responsibilities
are clearly defined and divided within the group. If everyone is aware of the tasks, then
there is no need to spend time figuring out what needs to be done and by whom.

Furthermore, the different processes in place should also be clearly defined. Mainly
this means creating a clear framework for the democratic process and how different
decision are made within the group. You want to know the mechanism for starting out a
process of discussion and set a timeline for when the decisions should be taken.

The framework should also invite ideas and opinions from the subordinates. You
need to establish a framework for providing and assisting feedback. The democratic
framework isn’t only about inclusion in the decision-making, but you want to create a
system where discussion and open dialogue are part of the make up of the
organization. Therefore, it’s important that subordinates feel able to voice their opinions
at all times.

Finally, the framework requires a clear and well-established system for rewarding
creativity and new ideas. The democratic framework requires a strong reward
structure. The rewards can range from financial bonuses to simple official recognition,
but it’s important to acknowledge the work done by subordinates. In many
organizations, things such as the “Employee of the Month” are part of the fabric of the
company.

THE QUALITIES OF A
DEMOCRATIC
LEADER
What about the characteristics of a democratic leader? It’s easy to assume that since
the decision-making power moves away from the leader, the leader’s responsibilities or
importance diminish. But in fact, the democratic leader has to show quite a bit of skill to
get the system to work appropriately.

The traits
There are certain traits that make being a democratic leader easier. If you possess the
below four traits and you enhance these qualities, you can begin your journey towards
democratic leadership.
#1 Intelligence
While all leadership styles require the leader to be intelligent and competent, democratic
leadership is among the top styles that call for this trait. Because the democratic leader
is like a conductor of an orchestra, he or she needs to have the competency to keep all
the parts together and moving. Although the decisions might not be in the hands of the
leader, the leader needs to ensure the group is competent enough to make the
decisions.
 The leader must provide enough information for the subordinates to guarantee they are
well equipped to make the right choices. The leader will often be the person to provide
background information and answer questions the subordinates might have on a variety
of topics.

But intelligence for democratic leader shouldn’t just be about understanding the industry
and the professional topics. The leader also needs plenty of emotional intelligence to
ensure the team works well together. It’s not easy to keep people working smoothly
together in an environment where everyone should be able to voice their opinion.
Therefore, the leader needs the ability to communicate with different personalities and
get people to work together efficiently.

To better understand how emotional intelligence works and how to improve your
emotional intelligence, check out the below YouTube video.

#2 Honesty
Democratic leaders need to be honest. The open communication and discussion-led
leadership framework won’t work if the leader can’t be honest with the subordinates.
The leader must be able to lay out the situation to ensure decisions are made on real
information and the leader has to stay honest about his or her own opinion. While the
leader might have the final say, it doesn’t mean the leader shouldn’t lay down his or her
own ideas for what the best course of action should be.

When it comes to leadership positions, honesty can be a tricky trait to hold on to. You
want to ensure situations don’t escalate and that employees remain happy. But at the
same time, you can’t start favoring people or hiding vital information only to maintain a
happy work environment. If you show honesty as a leader, then subordinates are also
more likely to stay open. This will create a better work environment for everyone.

It’s important to ensure honesty doesn’t translate to meanness. You want to provide
critique of ideas and negative criticism when it’s necessary, but you don’t need to do it
in a brutal manner. Counselor and psychotherapist Anna Jezuita recommends using an
old Sufi saying as a guideline when it comes to being honest without being a bully.
According to the saying, you should ask yourself three questions before voicing the
opinion:

 Is the feedback you want to provide true?

 Is the feedback necessary for reaching an objective or goal?

 Is the feedback kind or beneficial from the person’s perspective?

How to give feedback to employees.

#3 Creative
A democratic leader must also show plenty of creative flair. Since the leadership
framework requires innovative ideas and collaboration, the leader must be able to show
the way with ideas. The leader must also be able to help other members of the team to
innovate and this itself can require innovative thinking from the leader.

Creativity is often considered an innate trait, but everyone can improve and enhance
their creative thinking. As a leader, you can improve your own creativity, but also
subordinate’s creativity by establishing the right environment within the organization.
You can do this by ensuring there are enough stimuli to keep people innovative. You
want enough resources available to challenge your thinking. Continue your professional
learning and provide subordinates opportunities to do so as well.

Creativity is easier when people are able to speak their mind freely and feel that their
ideas are respected. You therefore want to encourage this type of behavior by
rewarding innovative thinking.
#4 Fairness
Since people will be open to speak their mind and decisions are mainly done through
majority vote, the leader has to be able to show fairness. There can’t be a situation
where certain ideas are dealt in a favorable manner, while other people’s ideas are not
fully appreciated. The democratic framework must be fair and consistent, with the leader
bearing the brunt of this responsibility.

As a leader, you need to be able to distance yourself from the situation emotionally and
to think rationally. Fairness in this context also means transparency. If you allow
subordinates to understand your own thinking process and decisions, you will show
them your decisions are based on rationality and not unfair feelings you might have
towards different employees.

One of the key ways to be fairer is to set clear guidelines. If you and the team create a
set of processes for the objectives you want to achieve, you limit the risk of appearing
unfairly. Communicate with your subordinates more and ensure you listen to feedback,
even if you think it isn’t just.

As a leader you should be thinking about creating an ethical corporate culture.

How to make democratic leadership

work?
Establishing a democratic leadership model in an organization is not an easy thing to
do. But with the help of the above characteristics and the below steps, it is possible to
ensure the leader can make this leadership style to work.
First, the leader must focus on open and honest communication. It’s crucial for the
leader to take in and give fair criticism without it causing a problem. For this kind of
communication to work, the leader must establish trust with subordinates and show
consistency and fairness in his or her decisions.

The key is to approach ideas and suggestions with an open mind. If people don’t feel
criticized or mocked by the ideas they lay out, they are more likely to feel able to
continue to stay creative. In addition, the leader needs to ensure everyone in the group
is able to view different ideas without dismissing them immediately. The leader wants to
create an open and honest communication channel between the subordinates as well
and not just between him and them.

The trust and commitment can be built quicker if there is respect for different ideas,
even when the particular idea doesn’t fit the current need. As a leader, you shouldn’t
turn away an idea only because it isn’t relevant for the moment. You don’t want to
spend too much time talking about issues that aren’t relevant, but you also don’t want to
dismiss suggestions straight away.

The third point of focus should be to create an environment of determined

commitment to decisions and explanation of different roles and rules. As
mentioned in the previous section, the democratic leadership framework works the best
when roles and responsibilities are outlined clearly. One of the key reasons behind
clarified processes is to ensure people stay on-topic. The leader must ensure the
conversation stays within the framework and the discussion is flowing towards a
solution for the problem at hand.

In essence, the democratic framework needs someone to keep the process flowing
towards the right direction, even when the power of decision-making is shared. If you’ve
ever been to a big conference, you know there has to be an organizing team helping
people out, even when the participants are free to decide where and when they go.

The determination to commit to decisions is another important part of the leader’s role
under this model. This essentially requires the leader to ensure that when a decision is
made, the team sticks to it. Although decision-making can take longer under the
democratic system, once the decision has been taken, the discussion around it should
end. Naturally, the organization must constantly review whether the decisions have
been the right ones to take; yet, the leader can’t have the team second-guessing the
decisions at all times. After the decision has been taken, the leader must ensure
everyone gets to work.

Finally, the leader has to learn to explain decisions openly and clearly to the group.
As we’ve discussed above, not all decisions are necessarily made within the group
under a democratic system, and even when they are made within the group, the
leader’s role is to get everyone on board. As a leader, your duty is to ensure
subordinates understand the reasoning behind the decisions.

Don’t confuse explaining to apologizing. As the leader, you don’t need to validate the
decisions, even though you want to ensure subordinates have an understanding of the
reasoning behind the decision. The decisions, with the different aspects affecting it,
must be clearly communicated to the rest of the group and organization, but the leader
shouldn’t face lengthy objections. As mentioned earlier, once a decision is made, the
group should get on to reaching its objectives and goals.

Watch the following video and learn how to deliver engaging speeches to your
employees.

ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES OF
DEMOCRATIC
LEADERSHIP
Democratic leadership has a positive reputation, mostly driven by people’s appreciation
of the democratic process. The enhanced involvement of different stakeholders is
considered a positive element, especially in a world where corporations don’t always
have the best reputation.

Nonetheless, the democratic leadership framework comes with its own set of
advantages and disadvantages, just like any other leadership style.

Advantages of democratic leadership

The advantages of the leadership style come from the increased involvement of
subordinates. First, being part of a group and having an equal say in the running of
things, will provide a sense of empowerment for employees. When the subordinate feels
included and able to have a say, the job satisfaction rate can improve as a result. You
don’t feel as a machine just doing what you are told, but a part of the organization.

Being more involved with the projects and tasks will increase the subordinate’s
commitment levels. As Lewin and his colleagues found during their experiments, the
enhanced inclusion in decision-making spills over to how attached one feels to the task.
When you feel your contribution is important, you want to put your heart and soul into
achieving the results. In essence, the subordinates see themselves invested in the
outcome. This in turn is beneficial for the organization because it can lead to projects
being finished more efficiently.

Furthermore, democratic leadership also enjoys from the benefits of diverse opinions.
Since the decision-making process is based on sharing ideas and collaborating as a
team to reach a consensus, the decisions are more thought-through and could better
answer the needs of the organization. There is more balance, and the discussion before
the decisions are made can point out any problems the process and project might have.
These can then be eradicated or prepared for better.

Gathering different opinions over decisions isn’t just about the diverse ideas it brings
about, but also the increased knowledge. People are experts on different things and by
asking a group of people to contribute, you guarantee the people who know the most
about a giving subject, provide their expertise. Therefore, decisions made within a group
can show higher competence levels.

Furthermore, the solutions are not decided on a whim, but are thoroughly thought
through, as the process requires people to discuss the ideas before the decision. This
has the possibility of ensuring the option the organization goes for has been tested for
possible risks and therefore, the group can be better prepared for everything.

Innovation is flourished because people are free to share ideas, offer feedback and
challenge the current ways of doing things. The democratic environment looks outside
of the box and constantly wonders whether behaviors, actions and ideas can be
improved. For a business, this kind of environment can provide benefits in terms of
productivity and product development.

In addition, consensus in decision-making can help create a stronger vision of the future
and ensure everyone is as committed to working towards these objectives. Even though
people might not always agree with the group’s decision, they have nonetheless been
part of the process and have, hopefully, understood the reasoning behind the decision.
This can ensure cohesion within the group and strengthen everyone’s commitment to
achieving the goal.

The above can help build a work environment based on trust. Since subordinates and
leaders have access to the same information and their decision-making power is equal,
there is no resentment or mistrust within the group. You don’t need to question the
leader’s motives or be afraid of the decisions that are taken – you will be an active
member in the process and you can trust the leader will listen to your views. The more
trust there is in the workplace, the more motivated and loyal the subordinates will be.

Overall, the above can drive up productivity and increase the bottom line consequently.
Subordinates are more satisfied at work, reducing the company’s churn rate, and the
decisions are more effective and innovative, creating better service, which can lead to
improved sales.
Disadvantages of democratic leadership
While it’s easy to understand democratic leadership through the above advantages, the
leadership framework shouldn’t be considered error free. There are specific
disadvantages of the theory and it is important leaders are aware of these.

First, as mentioned in the first section, the leadership theory has often lacked a proper
definition of what the democratic leadership actually entails. The clarity in definitions
matters, as it makes measurement of the theory’s effectiveness rather difficult. As
Gastil’s research showed, the framework has been used to describe systems that didn’t
actually include democratic participation.

He used the example of William Graebner’s 1986 study of the Foremen’s Club to point
out the problem. The club used democratic leadership style, but in a manner aimed to
“manipulate foremen”. He quotes Graebner’s findings, which state the participatory
framework was “designed to modify attitudes, and to convince foremen, a group
increasingly tempted to unionize, that their natural allegiance was to capital rather than
labor.”

Nonetheless, the ambiguity of the theory isn’t the only disadvantage of the leadership
theory. Its participatory style can also provide companies with different types of
headaches.

The first big disadvantage comes from the loss of speed in decision-making. Since
democratic leadership requires everyone’s input, the timeline for making decisions
increases, as you need to organize meetings and have proper discussions over the
subject. In a business world, quick decisions are often required as long periods of
indecision can lead to drop in operations.

If you have a problem in the manufacturing department, for example, you can’t spend a
month deciding what is the best machine to buy as a replacement or whether you
should just repair it. Goleman identified this issue and said

“the price [of democratic leadership] is endless meetings and

confused employees who feel leaderless”.
Furthermore, democratic leadership relies on consensus. But a majority decision isn’t
always the best decision – a compromise is not always worth it. Although people
might prefer hiring the new lead developer in-house, the organization might actually
benefit more from bringing in new talent, as this could mean new ideas and skills, for
example. As you can see, the diversity of opinion might not mean the best idea wins,
but rather that the team creates a version which most people agree with.

Although democratic decision-making tends to put a number of knowledgeable minds

together, there is a danger of grouping people with different skill sets. Not everyone has
the same knowledge of a given situation and therefore, the opinions are not necessarily
equally as good. Winston Churchill once critiqued the democratic system by stating,
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average
voter”. While this sounds rather harsh, it has an underlying truth to it.

Consider, for example, an organization with a team that has people with different skills
and responsibilities. When it comes to decision-making on an organization wide matter,
it’s hard to guarantee everyone has the exact same knowledge. Therefore, their
decision and opinion might be driven by misinformation or lack of knowledge. In
addition, certain situations might involve sensitive information that only the leader is
aware of. Sharing it might not be possible, yet if the subordinates aren’t aware of it, they
can’t make appropriate decisions.

Interestingly, just as some types of employees don’t work well under an authoritative
leadership, some don’t perform at their best in a democratic framework. There are
personalities that don’t like making decisions and certain people might even find the
requirement to participate in the process burdensome.

For example, the employee might feel like they are doing more than the actual leader,
although they might not be as handsomely rewarded as the leader. The leader might
receive a higher salary, yet the employees have to be prepared for the decision-making
and this could decrease the morale.

For the leadership style to work, clarity in guidelines and individual roles and
responsibilities must be ensured. Without an understanding of who needs to know and
what, the communication might fail within the group and projects can stall or even fail.
It’s therefore a tricky leadership model to implement and requires plenty of setting up to
work.

EXAMPLES OF
FAMOUS
DEMOCRATIC
LEADERS
Examples of democratic leaders are not hard to find. The political world is full of leaders
who have called themselves democratic, although their actions might not have always
been as democratic as voters might have hoped.

But as we’ve established above, the democratic leadership model is not about what side
you are on the political spectrum, but about the participation of subordinates in decision-
making. Plenty of leaders have used this as a framework for their leadership and below
are some of the most notable examples.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower is a good example of what the democratic leadership can
achieve when it’s put under pressure. The Republican president of the United States
had to use his leadership knowledge during one of the toughest times in human history,
the Second World War.

Eisenhower used a strategic approach to solving the issues, both militarily and
diplomatically. He acted as the Supreme Allied Commander during the war, helping to
oversee one of the largest air and sea armadas in history. He later became the
Supreme Command of NATO and served two terms as the president of the United
States.

During his time in the military, he didn’t command autocratically, as many commanders
would have done in the circumstances. His quote, “Together we must learn how to
compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose,” exemplifies
his wish to create more harmony and consensus in everything society does. He wanted
to involve other people in the decision-making and sought out expert opinions from
others.

Furthermore, he helped create democratic consensus in a world that had been torn up
by war. He transformed the White House, adding in new positions for close advisors,
enhancing his ability to seek advice from others.

The Mayo Family / The Mayo Clinic

In 1889, Dr William Mayo, along with his sons, founded the Mayo Clinic to provide
cutting-edge medical research around the world in a non-profit style. The hospital,
healthcare and research facility now attracts plenty of brilliant medical pioneers from
different lifestyles, largely due to its focus on the democratic leadership framework.

The research centre has been a success because it isn’t led autocratically, but people’s
ideas and opinions are listened to. There are opportunities for collaboration everywhere
and therefore, the doctors and researchers are able to draw the best out of each other.
People are interested in working for the organization because of its focus on
guaranteeing everyone an equal voice.

Dr. Charlie Mayo said,

“The problem before us is so to exchange information, and so to

educate men through travel that there shall develop a final,
cosmopolitan system of medicine which will combine the best
elements to be found in all countries.”
Therefore, the medical facility the family set up didn’t turn away experts or ignore what
they were saying. The family understood that transformation of healthcare requires
fresh thinking and collective knowledge.

The organization also understood the importance of combining different levels of

knowledge together. They didn’t subscribe to the simple specialist idea that if you are an
expert, you alone can make the right choices. In another telling quote, Dr Charlie Mayo
said,

“The definition of a specialist as one who ‘knows more and more

about less and less’ is good and true. Its truth makes essential that
the specialist, to do efficient work, must have some association with
others who, taken altogether, represent the whole of which the
speciality is only a part.”

Larry Page / Google

Google has pursued democratic leadership since its foundation in 1998. Larry Page, co-
founder and Google CEO, has been an incremental part of creating, not only the
business empire of Google, but its democratic approach to innovation and collaboration.
Page’s intelligent and creative personality drives his style. He has been ambitious
throughout his career; at one stage, he stated his work philosophy is “we should be
building great things that don’t exist”. The radical approach to innovation drives the
democratic framework as well.

Because Page is so focused on finding the next big thing, he likes to involve other
people in decision-making. His approach is questioning and he tries to bring out the
best in his employees. There are no half truths and shortcuts, but employees must be
able to demonstrate their opinions or ideas.

When Page started out as Google CEO, he changed its existing strategies around. His
first objective was to break the company into smaller parts, which would use democratic
strategies to innovate and create. Essentially, he wanted them to act as small start-ups.
He provided the individual teams with more autonomy and wanted enhanced
collaboration within the team in return.

Page’s leadership style shines through the following quote:

“My job as a leader is to make sure everybody in the company has

great opportunities, and that they feel they’re having a meaningful
impact and are contributing to the good of society. As a world, we’re
doing a better job of that. My goal is for Google to lead, not follow
that.”

Muhtar Kent / Coca-Cola

Another famous CEO, who used the democratic model to succeed, is Muhtar Kent.
Kent’s career with Coca-Cola highlights what commitment and focus on employee
satisfaction can look like at its best.

Kent began his career in Coca-Cola in 1978. He built his way up the corporate ladder,
achieving success along the way. One of his biggest achievements was to double the
company’s bottling operation’s output as a director. He held various leadership roles
and honed his skills in managing people in different situations.

When he achieved higher positions within the company, he always put his managerial
focus on improving the leadership frameworks within the organization and ensuring the
management promotes teamwork. He believed it to be an essential part of guaranteeing
effective results within the organization.
Kent became the CEO in 2008 and immediately focused on creating a more
collaborative management team to address Coca-Cola’s biggest problems. Kent
became famous for seeking advice during decision-making and he wanted to ensure the
company used diversity of opinion for its benefit. In a speech in 2012, Kent said,

“We don’t have all the answers or even all the questions, but we’re
committed to innovation, new ways of thinking and new pathways to
growth and value creation.”
To understand Kent’s participatory approach to business, you also have to look at his
record in partnering with other organizations. He said in a Fortune interview in 2015
that, “every moment of every day is an opportunity to start or strengthen a relationship,
and those relationships, if cultivated, can lead to incredible opportunities for everyone
involved”.

His personal connections helped Coca-Cola open a plant in Albania, after the fall of the
Soviet Union and enter the Polish market later on as well. By including other people into
your plans, you can achieve success.

To get an insight into Muhtar Kent’s leadership style and ideology, watch the
interesting leadership lecture he gave at Wharton School.

FINAL THOUGHTS
Democratic leadership is perhaps the most beloved leadership framework. The idea of
shared responsibility and greater involvement of the whole team has become popular
among CEOs and employees alike. But it’s also a system, which can be difficult to
establish and maintain.

A truly democratic leadership framework does not necessarily work because it can be
slow in terms of decision-making and its consensus-favoring approach might lead to
diluted decisions in terms of effectiveness. As examples from the business world have
shown, often-solid leadership requires making the difficult and unfavorable decisions in
a time of crisis. With a democratic leadership, the focus can be too much in maintaining
a good working environment instead of doing what the organization needs.

On the other hand, open and innovative environment does breed creativity, which can
boost a company’s performance. If the leader is able to use his or her creativity, honesty
and intelligence to empower and challenge the subordinates, then the group together
can achieve results fast. The democratic framework does provide a more equal and
innovative setting for people to achieve the best possible results.