ow we unlock the potential of leadership — in a controlled and deliberate way — can take many valuable forms. The goal is to reduce bottlenecks and create broader, safer shared ownership across teams. For many, that means relinquishing control — a challenging shift that often runs counter to what they’ve been taught. And yet, they have learned it elsewhere — they just haven’t considered its value as a leadership model. I have particular experience with voluntary leadership, often referred to as motivational leadership, within NGOs, sports associations, and start-up projects without established funding. I’ve seen people grow remarkably under these conditions — and I’ve seen others struggle within the same frameworks. Shared leadership, where the team collectively holds authority, puts sociocratic principles into practice — as so clearly articulated by Mette Aagaard. The focus lies on tasks and roles rather than fixed hierarchies or titles. Shared leadership has a surprisingly stringent structure — and it’s precisely through that structure that greater freedom becomes possible. Together with Jakob Raffn, I’ve practised Dual Leadership — sharing responsibility at the top level, where competencies dynamically complement one another depending on the project’s nature and needs. As a football coach — in a field steeped in hierarchical tradition — I chose to apply a flat leadership style. It suited some and challenged others. That tension became a constant test, especially when results fluctuated or expectations weren’t met. Leadership, to me, is about inspiring people towards purposes greater than themselves — and about providing the framework that makes that possible. It’s about defining the boundaries of our shared work and understanding what we can achieve together. Ultimately, leadership should serve as a safeguard — against cynicism, stress, and burnout. Every participant enters an open agreement: to spend another day of their life here, with the shared expectation that we take care of one another.