Leading change collaboratively means cooperating with others to create and guide meaningful change. This leadership style focuses on participation, teamwork, and shared responsibility rather than relying on one person to make all decisions. As Northouse (2021) explains, collaborative leaders engage others in the process, encourage dialogue, build trust, and foster commitment. Such leaders value openness and respect the ideas of the people they work with, cultivating an inclusive environment.
This kind of leadership also aligns with Kotter’s (2012) model of change, where he highlights the importance of creating a guiding association to support the change process. It shows real change happens more often when there is a strong group effort, not just individual direction. Collaborative leaders recognize people are more likely to support a change when they have a voice in shaping it.
In the class, we learned how collaboration helps decrease resistance to change. When leaders create a safe and inclusive environment, team members become more involved and motivated. According to Greenleaf (1977), servant leaders emphasize the needs of others and aim to empower their followers. This idea fits closely with collaborative change, as it shifts the focus from control to cooperation and service.
Overall, leading change collaboratively means working along with others, listening to different perspectives, and building solutions together. It is about trust, respect, and involving others in each step of the journey. This approach not only makes the change process more ethical and respectful but also increases the chances of success and long-term impact (Northouse, 2021; Kotter, 2012; Greenleaf, 1977).
Collaboration is no longer optional when we try to move an organization through uncertainty. It is the very engine that converts many small voices into one coherent momentum. By pooling viewpoints, spreading ownership, and lowering the social cost of dissent, collaborative change leadership raises the odds that a new direction is understood, accepted, and sustained. Leading change collaboratively creates faster learning loops, stronger trust, and measurably better performance, whether in business, health care, or education.
Team‑based sense‑making lets organizations detect weak signals earlier. In present fast‑moving environments, no single brain can monitor all weak signals, translate them into action, and carry people along. Uhl-Bien & Arena (2017) shows that organizations behave as complex adaptive systems where innovation appears in the tension between entrepreneurial ideas and operational routines. Leaders succeed by activating networks rather than issuing orders. Moore et al. (2023) finds integrated‑care networks using collaborative leadership resolve service gaps 25 % faster than hierarchical peers.
Group participation breeds commitment, and collective decision-making cuts resistance. Teams who decide criteria and solutions together implement faster and with less sabotage. Lines (2004) shows direct involvement cuts resistance and lifts success rates. Collaboration is the most effective way to resolve task disagreements because it satisfies all parties and generates commitment. Levi & Askay (2020) adds high‑involvement teams generate stronger psychological safety and thus surface risks early, preventing the “smart‑talk trap” where clever debate replaces real action.
Modern challenges demand interdisciplinary teams. Grigsby (2008) demonstrates such teams outperform silo specialists when scanning for compliance or model‑risk traps. In today’s commercial organizations, almost any task will require broad participation of salespersons, product team, support functions, and compliance people.
In sum, leading change collaboratively is no longer soft rhetoric. Instead, it is hard risk management. It equips organizations to sense, decide, and act at the cadence 21st century situations require.
During our second outdoor group activity at Langley campus, our team was presented with a creative challenge: to search across a large field for hidden cards. Whenever we found two cards, we could return to the starting point and play a physical or mental game. The goal was to collect as many points as possible by finding more cards and successfully completing the related games.
At first, we were confused about how to approach the challenge. The field was large, time was limited, and we had no clear plan. Then, one team member calmly suggested we should start from the farthest area on the map. His idea was simple but effective. We had more energy at the beginning, the weather was cooler, and we could pick up additional cards on the way back. This strategy made our work more efficient, helping us avoid unnecessary trips and maximizing our success. The team quickly agreed, and this quiet suggestion helped us move forward with clarity.
Trust was a cornerstone of our ability to lead change. Northouse (2021) notes trust encourages team members to rely on each other, which we cultivated by supporting one another without blame. For example, when tasks demanded physical or mental endurance, we ensured every member felt valued, fostering a sense of shared purpose. This trust enabled us to take initiatives and adapt to evolving challenges, contributing to our first-place achievement.
Later in the day, we faced the cube-building activity. The materials were heavy, the goal was unclear, and the instructions were vague. Everyone felt uncertain and frustrated at some point. Still, instead of blaming each other or giving up, we relied on trial and error. Every member’s input was welcomed. As Northouse (2021) explains, servant leadership involves empowering others and encouraging collaboration, especially in uncertain environments. Although no one acted as the official leader, the shared responsibility and respect within our group helped us complete the task in the final minutes.
This experience taught me leadership is not always loud or formal. Sometimes, a quiet suggestion or calm direction can shift a team’s entire performance. As Tiefenbacher (2020) suggests, adaptive teams prioritizing trust and open communication are more likely to succeed in changing environments. Our day in nature confirmed this truth and strengthened our appreciation for collaborative leadership.
Effective leadership, especially when navigating and leading change collaboratively, hinges on a unique strategy for addressing potential resistance. Suneel Gupta's research on "backable people" highlights a consistent pattern: they proactively steer into the objections of their own ideas. This means successful leaders don't shy away from negatives; instead, they bring potential concerns to the forefront.
Effective leadership, particularly in the context of leading change collaboratively, necessitates a proactive and inclusive approach to potential resistance. Successful leaders must embody the role of a change agent, recognizing that an unwillingness to embrace change can lead to "irrelevance" and staying with the "status quo" means remaining in "the mess we are in".
Today's leaders confront unprecedented challenges – from the climate emergency to hybrid working and rapid technological advancements. These complex problems cannot be solved by a single individual, underscoring the vital need for effective leadership to lead change collaboratively. Our guest, Tim Raw, Impact’s Global Head of Solutions & Practice, emphasizes leaders must create the right conditions for people to connect and contribute, rather than providing all the answers. A key strategy involves proactively steering into the objections of one's own ideas. This transparency frees mental space and helps transform critics into collaborators by inviting diverse perspectives early.
On one occasion when a massive crowd of over 5,000 grew hungry, Jesus challenged His disciples: "You give them something to eat". They doubted. Philip saw the cost as impossible, and Andrew questioned a boy’s small offering (5 loaves, 2 fish). Jesus engaged the team, had disciples organize the crowd and distribute the food, multiplied their offering, blessed the boy’s humble gift, created abundance, and ensured nothing was wasted. Leftover baskets (12, one per disciple) showed God’s provision through their hands (English Standard Version Bible, 2016, Matthew 14:16). This story highlights Jesus invites us to bring what we have, trust His multiplication, and work together to meet needs.
In Luke 21:1-11 (ESV, 2016), Jesus demonstrates leading change collaboratively by inviting tired fishermen to collaborate and asking them to cast their nets again despite their failed efforts. He worked with their tools and skills, turning their empty nets into a miraculous catch when they obeyed. Later, after his resurrection, Jesus repeated the lesson, guiding them to cast nets on the other side for another overwhelming haul (ESV, 2016, John 21:1-14). Both miracles required teamwork. The disciples hauled the fish together, and Jesus even cooked breakfast with their catch. Jesus transformed fishermen into leaders, not through commands but by partnering with them in their work.
So What?
Collective leadership develops trust, cooperation, and improved decisions.
Every individual have the opportunity to feel they are being listened and heard in a change, which makes change successful.
Assists work of teams in cross-cultural and cross-value situations.
Helps others to come out victorious.
Now What?
In the Workplace
During the week have team check-ins where performance should be shared and support requested.
Engage in transparency through a shared digital tool (such as calendars, or task lists).
Set an open atmosphere where everyone can talk including the silent members.
Get information about differences using team personality tools (e.g. Birkman).
Personal Settings
Put the family/friends in charge at times, e.g. “You make arrangements to that dinner”.
Do not give directive answers but ask open questions e.g. “How can I help?”
Praise the effort, e.g. "You tried so very hard, you did great!"
Cultural Considerations
Honor the use of power, feedback and teamwork in various cultures.
Adopt a style deemed respectful and comfortable to your team.
Servant Leadership Usage
Instead of insisting what to do, ask how to help.
Listen first.
Give others credit.
What are some of the collective leadership strategies people can employ to minimize the problems with change and maximize team participation in the various cultural and organizational contexts?
How can a leader ensure by the end of a change process, all team members feel they are heard?
How can the concepts of servant leadership contribute to long-term success of a collaborative change work in personal and professional settings?
English Standard Version Bible. (2016). The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway.
Grigsby, R. K. (2008). Committee, task force, team: What’s the difference? Why does it matter? Academic Physician & Scientist, 42(2), 4-5.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Levi, D., & Askay, D. A. (2020). Group dynamics for teams. SAGE publications.
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: Resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215.
Moore, J., Elliott, I. C., & Hesselgreaves, H. (2023). Collaborative leadership in integrated care systems; creating leadership for the common good. Journal of Change Management, 23(4), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2023.2261126
Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Piercy, C. W. (2021). Problem Solving in Teams and Groups. University of Kansas Libraries. https://opentext.ku.edu/teams
Tiefenbacher, W. (2020, January 19). Team conflict: understanding types of conflict and how to manage them sustainably. Retrieved from CQ Dossier: https://www.ckju.net/en/dossier/team-conflict-understanding-types-conflict-and-how-manage-them-sustainably
Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena. M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9-20.