My passion for leadership began in 1998, which has led me to question the failure of leadership in African societies compared to those in Europe and North America. Kwame Nkrumah, a Pan-Africanist in the early ‘70s, envisioned a vibrant continent second to none in the world, one in which its leaders adequately harnessed its vast natural and human resources. He says:
“We have here in Africa everything necessary to become a powerful, modern, Industrialized continent…Africa, far from having inadequate resources, is probably better equipped for industrialization than almost any other region in the world.”
Everyone, since Nkrumah, has emphasized Africa’s great potential, but the question remains: Is potential all there is? Five decades later, Nkrumah’s optimism hasn’t been fulfilled! Successive leaders of the continent, plagued primarily by selfishness and greed after the colonial rule, have failed to create a compelling vision that captured Africans’ imagination and transformed that vast potential into reality. In 2018, I outlined the Top 21 problems of Africa, and three questions provided a framework for my reflection. They are:
- Why do some leaders succeed so well in their endeavors, while others plunge a whole generation into a nightmare?
- What are the expected behaviors of a leader in our rapidly changing society?
- Why are Europeans, Americans, and, lately, Asians responding so proactively to the notion of globalization and their region’s economic development, while Africa seems to pay lip service to this effect, utterly oblivious to what is happening around the world?
Poverty, diseases, brain drain, and capital flight are among the problems confronting Africa. The current crop of leaders across Sub-Saharan Africa does not seem to have the slightest pinch of the proposition to handle the challenges. I have struggled to articulate the type of leadership most suitable for African society. I have often asked myself what type of leadership is most suitable for African society. This is a difficult question to ponder! It took me nearly three decades to process this. Another question of interest is what went wrong with the Monarchical style of leadership in Africa? Some observers have come down very hard on the Monarchical style of leadership. They argue that absolute power should not be concentrated in the hands of a single ruler. But when you look at Monarchy in its purest form, especially as depicted in my own tribal legends or myths, you can see that it is a type of leadership in which responsibility is shared through consultation and inclusive participation. The Yoruba movies of the 1980s and early 90s, including the epic “Saworo Ide” by Mainframe Productions, pointed us in this direction.
The main problem with a Monarchy is its tendency toward autocracy. The absolute power of the king cannot be challenged! It was a massive machine for the trans-Atlantic slave trade between the 16th and 18th centuries. I have consistently asked myself out of curiosity, what kind of leadership style has worked in the heroic past of African society? Historically, African cultures with a monarchical system at the center of their socio-political life have traces of a consultative and participatory form of leadership. Bearing that in mind, I can argue that this model of leadership can be the ideal framework for what is possible in our contemporary times. I am not necessarily advocating for a Monarchical style of government. But we can extract the consultative and participatory elements to create a unique style of government, perhaps with a blend of democratic structure that reflects the worldviews of African society. However, for it to work, it must have a servant leader at its helm.
The question often arises whether democracy is working in Africa. Democracy is an imported style of governance that was not properly adapted to suit African political philosophy and worldviews. Democracy is fragile and has its own weaknesses, as recently witnessed among some of the most sophisticated societies. For these reasons, I presupposed that the servant leadership approach should be researched and embraced within the African context. Since the post-colonial era, little progress has been made in the various political leadership structures, whether military or democratic. I am therefore postulating that servant leadership, with its plausibility of consultation and inclusive participation, will make a difference!
Shared-consultative-participatory-servant leader
Shared leadership is a collaborative approach to leadership in which efforts, responsibilities, decision-making, and authority are distributed and coordinated among team members rather than concentrated in a single entity. It’s a demonstration of collective effort, mutual accountability, and the leveraging of diverse skills and perspectives within a community.
The main idea of this leadership theory is that leadership, as an administrative framework, is not tied to a formal position or hierarchy, but rather a responsive requirement predicated on the needs of the task and the strengths of the team members. In a real leadership management structure and setting, one person may be tasked with leading strategic planning sessions because of their expertise, while another is tasked with guiding the group through conflict resolution or technical challenges. The point to emphasize is that sometimes leadership roles require fluidity and role shifting, thereby fostering adaptability, empowerment, and a sense of ownership among all participants. Research often links shared leadership to improved team performance, innovation, and resilience, especially in complex or creative environments.
It contrasts with traditional top-down leadership, where a single leader directs and controls the group. Shared leadership is commonly seen in self-managed teams, cooperatives, and organizations that aim to flatten hierarchies and promote inclusivity.
What about Participatory Leadership?
Compared to shared leadership, participatory leadership is less about distributing authority and more about inviting contribution while the leader still holds the primary responsibility. It’s common in democratic settings, community organizations, and workplaces that prioritize employee involvement, such as tech startups and educational institutions. The two concepts overlap in their emphasis on collaboration, but shared leadership goes further by decentralizing power, while participatory leadership keeps the leader as the central figure who integrates the group’s input.
Consultative Leadership
Consultative leadership is a style in which the leader seeks input, opinions, and expertise from team members or stakeholders before making decisions, while ultimately retaining the authority to choose the final course of action. It strikes a balance between autocratic decision-making and more collaborative approaches, leaning toward inclusion without fully relinquishing control. The leader acts as a facilitator of dialogue, gathering insights to inform their judgment, but doesn’t necessarily aim for consensus or delegate leadership responsibilities.
Imagine a CEO facing a tough budget-cutting decision: they might consult department heads for data and perspectives, weigh the feedback, and then make the decision independently. This approach values expertise and fosters a sense of involvement, often boosting trust and morale among the team. It’s particularly effective in situations that require specialized knowledge or when buy-in is needed without slowing down the process through full group agreement. However, it can frustrate those who expect their input to carry more weight, especially if the leader consistently overrides their suggestions.
Reflecting on it, consultative leadership sits somewhere between participatory and shared leadership. Like participatory leadership, it prioritizes input and engagement, but it’s less about empowering the group to co-create solutions and more about enhancing the leader’s decision-making with diverse perspectives. Compared to shared leadership, it’s far less decentralized—power stays firmly with the leader rather than being distributed across the team. It’s a pragmatic style, often seen in hierarchical organizations such as corporations or government bodies, where efficiency and accountability coexist with some level of inclusivity.
The strength of consultative leadership lies in its flexibility: it can adapt to complex challenges by tapping into collective wisdom while keeping the process streamlined. Yet, its success hinges on the leader’s ability to genuinely listen and communicate why certain inputs were or weren’t acted upon—otherwise, it risks feeling like a superficial gesture. In practice, it’s a bit like a seasoned chef tasting ingredients from their team before crafting the final dish: the input matters, but the recipe is still theirs.
The Role of a Servant Leader
Yes, a servant leader could effectively coordinate the processes of shared, participatory, and consultative leadership, as the servant leadership philosophy complements and enhances these collaborative approaches. Servant leadership, introduced by Robert Greenleaf in the 1970s, prioritizes the needs of the team, emphasizing empathy, support, and empowerment over personal authority. The leader’s role is to serve first—fostering growth, building trust, and enabling others to thrive—rather than to command or dominate.
Here are how this could work in practice:
With Shared Leadership:
A servant leader naturally aligns with shared leadership’s emphasis on distributing responsibility. They would focus on creating an environment where team members feel safe to step into leadership roles based on their strengths. For example, they might mentor individuals, remove obstacles, and ensure resources are available, allowing leadership to emerge organically. Instead of directing, they’d facilitate, asking, “How can I support This humility and focus on others’ development amplify shared leadership’s potential, ensuring it doesn’t devolve into chaos due to a lack of coordination.
With Participatory Leadership:
Servant leadership dovetails with participatory leadership’s inclusive decision-making. A servant leader would actively listen to team input, valuing diverse perspectives to serve the group’s collective good. They might organize forums or one-on-one check-ins to ensure everyone’s voice is heard, especially those who are less vocal. While retaining final decision-making power (as participatory leadership often implies), they’d frame their role as synthesizing the team’s wisdom to meet its needs, not their own ego. This could boost engagement, as team members see their contributions genuinely matter.
With Consultative Leadership:
In a consultative context, a servant leader would approach seeking input as an act of service, not just a procedural step. They’d consult team members, focusing on understanding their expertise and concerns, using questions like “What do you need to succeed here?” or “How can this decision best support you?” While they’d still make the final call, their servant mindset would ensure the process feels authentic, not performative, and would build trust even when not all suggestions are adopted.
Coordinating All Three
A servant leader could weave these styles together by acting as a connective thread—nurturing collaboration while keeping the group aligned toward a common goal. Picture a project manager overseeing a community initiative: they might delegate tasks to emerging leaders (shared), invite broad input on the plan (participatory), and consult experts on specifics (consultative), all while prioritizing the team’s well-being and growth. Their focus would be on enabling others—ensuring clear communication, resolving conflicts with empathy, and adapting their support to the situation.
Strengths and Challenges
This coordination could excel in environments that value empowerment and innovation, such as nonprofits or creative teams, where morale and ownership drive success. The servant leader’s selflessness could harmonize the fluidity of shared leadership, the inclusivity of participatory leadership, and the structure of consultative leadership, creating a dynamic yet cohesive process. However, challenges arise if decisiveness is needed quickly—servant leaders might overemphasize consensus or support at the expense of firm direction, especially in crises. Balancing service with authority requires skill and situational awareness.
If you are passionate about writing and understand the power to shape culture through writing, please get in touch with us immediately, and our representatives will walk you through how you can join our team of writers at the Africana Leadership Digest.
[1] Africa: Open for Business. Directed by Carol Pineau. http://bu.kanopy.com, Accessed on January 6, 2018.
