From a leader's perspective, that means giving the reigns of authority, influence, and accountability to a subordinate who can take ownership for the mission. From a follower's perspective, everyone knows who to take direction from.
This is the problem with many companies that are owned in a partnership. I know...I violated this principle in a franchise I helped buy. FIVE owners. Yes, I said five owners at all 20% ownership. Disaster waiting to happen. The objective for the company was never clearly defined. The real estate agents that worked for us didn't really know who was THE leader. Yes, we had a sales manager as one of the partners. That did not stop the agents from approaching the other owners to get direction and help.
End result: Failure.
Someone has to call the shots. Someone has to have the weight of the success or failure on their shoulders. When they do they take personal responsibility, a concept in steep decline in our culture, to make sure the objective is achieved. Winston Churchill said, "The price of greatness is responsibility."
Can partnerships work? Sure- if the organization is utilizing the Unity of Command principle. A family is designed to have a partnership of a father and mother guiding their off spring. Yet, every child knows that if one parent says, "no" they can try the other parent to get a "yes." If the kids don't turn out some parents blame the other parent. Both parents need to be unified and someone HAS to be 100% responsible.
When I was an infantry platoon leader we had a motto for our leadership: "I am fully responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen under my command."
When a leader takes responsibility for the success or failure of the battle, they grow in self-confidence when they succeed and grow in experience and knowledge when they fail.
