By Gemma Jiang, Jenny Grabmeier and Joan Lurie.
2. Jenny Grabmeier (biography)
3. Joan Lurie (biography)
When you are in a leadership role, are you able to shift your leadership style to accommodate the needs of your team and project? When consensus is hard to reach, are you able to step in with a directive approach? Are you able to hold back from being directive when creativity and participation are needed?
A Spectrum of Leadership Styles
Lewin, Lippitt and White in their foundational 1939 study on group dynamics suggested three leadership styles. In the context of cross-disciplinary science, we do not see these as separate styles or the only three styles, but as reference points along a continuum. At one end of their spectrum lies directive leadership, and at the other, delegative leadership, and somewhere in the middle, participative leadership. Effective leadership is seen as applying the spectrum responsively to the emergent needs of the context.
Directive Leadership: When timely decisions are needed to keep a project on track, a directive approach—characterized by clear instructions and close supervision—can prevent bottlenecks and maintain focus.
Delegative Leadership: At the opposite end of the continuum, delegative leadership excels when ideas need the freedom to flow through cycles of divergence and convergence, ultimately leading to innovative breakthroughs. This approach empowers team members to explore and innovate, fostering creativity and encouraging a diversity of perspectives.
Participative Leadership: Between these two poles is participative leadership that strikes a balance by involving team members in the decision-making process while providing guidance and direction. This style is particularly effective during planning and problem-solving, where input from various perspectives can lead to more informed and robust decisions. By encouraging collaboration and shared responsibility, participative leadership enhances team engagement and ensures that decisions are well-rounded and supported by the group, while still maintaining a clear sense of direction and accountability.
The Balancing Act in Team Science Leadership
In academic and collaborative environments, where consensus, inclusivity, and autonomy are often prized, those in a leadership role may be reluctant to be directive. However, they should recognize when it is the responsibility of their role to guide their team decisively to achieve the best outcomes. Two common and significant contexts where a directive leadership approach can be helpful are:
- Navigating the Groan Zone: The transition between divergent and convergent thinking is often called the “groan zone,” as described by Carrie Kappel in her i2Insights contribution: Collaboration: From groan zone to growth zone. This phase can feel challenging because it is hard to see how the plentiful ideas generated in the divergent phase can converge into a viable path for action. Leaders play a critical role in guiding teams through this uncertainty, steering them away from indecision and toward a viable course of action. To harness the benefits of team diversity, leaders can cultivate a learning culture where team members regularly reflect on their actions and make ongoing adjustments. This adaptive approach helps counterbalance the drawbacks of overly directive leadership styles.
- Holding the Vision: In collaborative projects, it is easy to dilute goals by trying to accommodate every perspective out of a desire to be inclusive. However, leaders must maintain a strategic vision and ensure that vision remains front of mind for the team, even if it means not everyone will agree. For example, when developing a new research initiative, a leader might need to prioritize certain ideas over others to keep the project aligned with its original intention. Leadership in complex projects requires making tough decisions to ensure the team remains on track.
Without awareness of the spectrum of leadership styles available, leaders may be stuck in one style. Even worse, they may oscillate unpredictably between styles. For example, they may be covertly directive by creating complicated rules and rubrics without clear guidance, shifting to excessively delegative by leaving teams to operate independently, and then becoming overtly directive when results fall short of expectations and stress levels rise.
In the fast-paced world of cross-disciplinary science teams, effective leadership isn’t about adhering to a fixed set of approaches or behaviors, or following a rigid hierarchy, or about majority rule. Instead, effective leadership requires competence in navigating shifts between leadership styles to respond to what’s needed in the circumstances and maximize the desired outcomes.
Is the spectrum of leadership styles useful in the leadership roles you play? Are there occasions when you have leaned too heavily on one leadership style? What helps you recognize which style is most appropriate in a particular context? How might leadership development effort help enhance your ability to navigate the spectrum?
Reference:
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. Journal of Social Psychology, 10: 271–299.
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Gemma Jiang PhD is senior team scientist at the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences (IRISS) of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. She applies complexity leadership theory, social network analysis, and a suite of facilitation and coaching methods to enable cross-disciplinary science teams to converge upon solutions for challenges of societal importance.
Biography: Jenny Grabmeier MA is research strategist and facilitator at the Ohio State University (OSU) Translational Data Analytics Institute in Columbus, Ohio, USA. In her role she oversees research awards to catalyze new interdisciplinary, big data-enabled teams and projects; employs a variety of facilitation methods to support team ideation and strategic planning processes; and collaborates with other Ohio State University institutes and entities to advance large-scale interdisciplinary research initiatives.
Biography: Joan Lurie MA is the Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Orgonomics, a business and methodology she created with the purpose of developing leaders and organizations to be fit for and navigate the complex landscape we are in. Joan works as a consultant and coach to enable leaders, teams and organizations to continuously adapt, perform, thrive and grow as collaborative ecosystems and learning networks.
Funding Acknowledgement:
This publication was supported, in part, by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Grant Number UM1TR004548. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Many thanks to the authors for writing such a thoughtful and practical piece. The topic of leadership styles and the ability to shift among them is addressed with clarity and valuable insight.
– In my view, the maturity level of team members plays a crucial role in determining the most appropriate leadership style. Teams with greater emotional, intellectual, and professional maturity are generally more prepared to engage with participative or delegative approaches, whereas less experienced or unstable teams may benefit more from directive guidance.
– At the same time, shifting between leadership styles is not a simple task. Many leaders internalize a particular style throughout their professional journey, and it becomes part of their habitual identity. In such cases, changing styles is not just about learning a new technique—it requires a fundamental shift in how one perceives leadership, control, trust, and responsibility.
Therefore, transitioning between leadership styles is not merely a process adjustment, but a true paradigm shift—a transformation in the underlying mindset regarding one’s role and the dynamics of the team. Achieving this level of leadership agility requires real-world experience with different styles and reflective learning from those experiences.
Reza
Reza, I deeply appreciate both of the points you’ve raised here—especially the nuanced way you describe the interplay between team maturity and leadership style. It resonates strongly with my own experience. Your observation about how the maturity level of team members shapes which leadership approach is most effective is particularly insightful—it’s not unlike how parenting styles evolve in response to a child’s age and developmental stage.
I also completely agree that shifting between leadership styles is far from easy. It often requires deep inner work and a willingness to expand one’s self-understanding. I’ve recently been immersing myself in the adult development literature, particularly around how meaning-making frameworks continue to evolve over time. This has become a central lens in my leadership coaching practice—it’s truly foundational to leadership agility and growth.
My latest adventure in this space is polarity thinking (also known as both/and thinking). Like leadership style shifting, it’s much easier said than done—but there are powerful practices that can support leaders in navigating tensions without collapsing into either/or traps. It’s a beautiful—and demanding—invitation into a more integrated form of leadership.
Thank you again for such a thoughtful and grounded contribution to this conversation.
Gemma
Just a short note: Thank you for these thoughts on leadership. I agree to be flexible between the three styles in the way of lateral leading/working/communicating with research groups. Apart from that, I would be very much interested in the way you implement this into facilitation methods in your practice. Is there any literature on facilitating ID/TD research or do you use your personal set of diverse methods (how I deal with it)?
Dear Sabine,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful note. I completely agree—facilitation is a key leadership skill, especially when working across disciplinary boundaries in research groups. The ability to hold space, guide process, and adapt in real time is foundational to fostering transdisciplinary collaboration.
In my own practice, I draw from a range of facilitation resources that support inclusive, adaptive, and purpose-driven engagement. Here are a few that I’ve found especially valuable:
• Liberating Structures: https://www.liberatingstructures.com/
• TD-Net Toolbox for Co-Producing Knowledge: https://naturalsciences.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox
• Human-Centered Design: A great starting point is the book Innovating for People: Handbook of Human-Centered Design Methods
These resources have helped me build a flexible and intentional approach to facilitation, which I adapt based on context, group dynamics, and desired outcomes.
I have also recently wrote a reflection article on my facilitation approach: https://medium.com/@gemmajiang/facilitation-is-leadership-seven-lessons-from-the-front-of-the-room-9aea36585e7b.
Happy exploring!
Gemma
Thanks a lot, Gemma, you‘ve made my day! More via email next week.
As a postgraduate researcher, I found this article incredibly relevant and insightful. In academia, especially at the early career stage, we often find ourselves juggling multiple roles—researcher, collaborator, mentor, project manager—each requiring a slightly different “head” and, with it, a different leadership approach.
What really resonated with me is the idea of leadership as a spectrum rather than a fixed style. In cross-disciplinary environments, adaptability isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s essential. I’ve noticed that depending on the context—whether I’m leading a student group, coordinating a research task, or collaborating with peers—I naturally shift between participative, delegative, and occasionally directive styles.
That said, the shift between these roles isn’t always seamless. Moving from a collaborative brainstorming session into a scenario where firm decision-making is required can feel jarring. This highlights the need for more structured leadership development, especially early on. Mandatory training on navigating leadership dynamics could help us make the most of our professional roles and relationships, and ensure we’re leading effectively and compassionately, whatever the situation calls for.
Thank you for articulating this balancing act so clearly—it’s encouraged me to reflect more intentionally on how I lead, and how I might grow into that role with more confidence and awareness.
Thank you so much for your kind words and for sharing your direct experience—it truly resonates and affirms my commitment to this topic. Hearing how the ideas landed with you, especially as a postgraduate researcher navigating multiple roles, is deeply encouraging.
I completely agree that structured leadership development is much needed in academia, particularly for those in the early stages of their careers. I’ve greatly enjoyed coaching researchers across various career stages, and I find early-career scientists especially open and agile in their leadership growth. My approach draws primarily from co-active coaching and polarity thinking, both of which support the kind of adaptive, context-sensitive leadership you described so well.
If you’re ever interested in exploring this further, please feel free to reach out—I’d be delighted to continue the conversation.
Warmly,
Gemma
Very interesting article on Transdisciplinary Leadership Styles to accomplish milestones and goals of a team science project. While I agree with Directive, Delegative and Participative (DDP) leadership styles juggling through Groan Zones on constant basis to accommodate convergent (myopic) and divergent (expansive diverse) perspectives to bring projects to fruition, there are other multi-dimensional factors that play a critical role in achieving success in allocated time and budget framework. For instance, leadership styles have to accommodate constant dynamic uncertainty; contingency plans in place to make it efficient frictionless operational framework; dealing with different personality traits, preferences, choices, mindsets, inclinations, gut-feelings and thought processes in real world experiences of individuals being part of this large working group model system. Flexibility, empathy, kindness, respecting everyone’s contributions, getting ideas from introverts, and balancing effervescing exuberance from certain extroverts who can derail projects from their myopic visions and short-term gains, losing the bigger picture, sacrificing forest for the individual trees analogy. Great thoughtful write-up, very educational and informative for wider audience and readership. Every successful leadership style requires constant learning from cradle to grave and have humility to learn and grow on daily basis. Thank You!
Dear Anil,
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and generous comment. I truly appreciate your acknowledgment of the complexity of leadership tasks, especially within the context of team science, where this nuance is often under-recognized.
You’re absolutely right—effective leadership in these environments calls for more than switching between DDP styles. It requires a multidimensional sensitivity to the lived dynamics of the group: diverse personalities, emotional undercurrents, shifting priorities, and the ever-present uncertainties of complex work. I especially appreciate your emphasis on empathy, humility, and the importance of balancing voices across the spectrum—from introverts to exuberant extroverts—all while staying grounded in the larger vision.
Your reflections beautifully reinforce the heart of the piece: that leadership is not about rigid adherence to style, but about adaptive, conscious presence. Thank you again for your kind words and for deepening the conversation with your insight.
Gemma
Glad to see concurrence among our thoughtful processes and consensus development around complex situations that requires building of “trust and respect” among the group and as you rightly pointed out “flexibility and adaptive, conscious presence” are key ingredients or secret sauce to have smooth, productive, result oriented outcomes to any cooperative, collaborative and team science projects in a frictionless/seamless environments on regular basis. This topic area has practical applicability on our daily life interactions and engagements with our colleagues, co-workers and competitors alike. Thanks again!
Yes, I’ve always believed that leadership can be practiced in our everyday interactions and engagements with colleagues. It’s less about positional titles and more about how we choose to show up in life. The world certainly needs more intentional leadership actions from all of us!