Abstract
This study examines why leaders struggle to shift from involvement to true devolution of authority, creating an “Illusion of Empowerment” that limits organizational adaptability. Using survey data from 620 leaders across eight sectors and an intervention subset (n = 130) comparing formal training with managerial coaching, we test whether psychological barriers mediate the relationship between follower readiness and delegation and whether coaching strengthens devolved (S4) behavior. Results indicate that delegating is rare (2%) and accountability anxiety mediates the link between readiness and delegation; coaching is associated with higher reflective capacity and greater S4 frequency, particularly under psychological safety. The findings position coaching as a scalable intervention for distributed leadership.
Adaptive leadership, as conceptualized by Heifetz et al. (2009), frames leadership not as a formal position but as the collective work of mobilizing people to thrive amid complexity and change. It emphasizes a leader's capacity to interrogate underlying assumptions, navigate ambiguity, and stimulate continuous learning. A core tenet of this perspective is the distinction between technical problems that can be resolved through existing expertise and procedures and adaptive challenges that require new learning, shifts in values, and the reconfiguration of roles across organizational boundaries.
In contemporary business and organization environments defined by relentless disruption and evolving stakeholder expectations, adaptive leadership has become a strategic necessity. It encourages employees to question legacy practices, experiment with novel approaches, and adjust rapidly to shifting needs. Because employee innovation is a critical driver of competitiveness, firms must cultivate everyday practices of creativity and iterative improvement rather than depending solely on episodic breakthroughs. Leader behavior is central to this process: when leaders demonstrate flexibility and visible support for change, they foster the psychological safety and intrinsic motivation necessary for employees to explore and advance new ideas.
An expanding body of research indicates that adaptive leadership contributes to work climates that strengthen commitment, learning, and performance (Steinmann et al., 2018). By aligning individual contributions with collective goals, adaptive leaders enhance team effectiveness while mitigating counterproductive behaviors. They achieve this by creating conditions conducive to distributed problem-solving, communicating priorities with clarity, and empowering employees to experiment and iterate (Guzmán et al., 2020; Knight et al., 2019).
Despite the theoretical promise of adaptive leadership, the mechanism for achieving the necessary behavioral shifts remains under-researched. This study addresses this gap by evaluating coaching as a primary intervention for leadership development. By comparing the outcomes of formal training versus reflective coaching, the research explores how coaching facilitates the transition into the “S4 Devolve Space.” The study contributes to the evidence-based coaching literature by providing large-scale empirical support (N = 620) for coaching as a catalyst for organizational agility and distributed leadership.
Adaptive and situational accounts of leadership converge when the empirical question is not which style is “best” in the abstract but how leaders enact authority across varying levels of follower readiness and systemic complexity. Situational Leadership Theory (SLT; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) operationalizes the micro-level alignment of leader behaviors to follower competence and commitment, identifying Delegating (S4) as the style that matches high follower readiness. Obolensky's Complex Adaptive Leadership reframes the same transition at the meso- and macro-levels. The “Devolve Space” is not solely an individual leader's choice but an emergent organizational state in which authority and decision rights are distributed to enable adaptive responses at scale. By measuring leader behaviors with an SLT-based inventory while interpreting patterns through Obolensky's systems lens, this study treats S4 both as an observable leader behavior and as an indicator of an organization's capacity to support polyarchic adaptation. This dual framing allowed us to test not only whether leaders report S4 behaviors, but also why behavioral enactment may fail to scale in complex organizational ecologies.
This study has three primary objectives:
(1) to examine the extent to which a “Delegation Gap” exists in contemporary leadership practice;
(2) to test whether psychological barriers, particularly accountability anxiety, mediate the relationship between follower readiness and delegation; and
(3) to evaluate the relative effectiveness of formal training versus managerial coaching in facilitating the transition to devolved (S4) leadership behaviors within adaptive organizational contexts.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section reviews the theoretical foundations integrating situational and adaptive leadership perspectives. This is followed by the research methodology and data analysis approach. The findings are then presented and discussed in relation to the proposed hypotheses, before concluding with implications for theory, practice, and future research.
Theoretical Background
Early contingency theories posited that leadership effectiveness depends on the alignment between leader behavior and situational demands. Fiedler's (1967) contingency model distinguished between task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership, identifying leader–member relations, task structure, and position power as critical situational variables. While no single style is universally optimal, task-oriented leadership tends to be most effective in conditions of extreme situational control (very high or very low), whereas relationship-oriented leadership excels in moderately favorable contexts (Fiedler, 1967; Yukl, 2020). These insights provided the foundation for more dynamic situational frameworks, most notably Hersey and Blanchard's SLT (1982).
Situational Leadership Theory
SLT posits that effectiveness depends on the alignment between a leader's behavior and the “readiness” of followers to perform specific tasks (Hersey et al., 2013). Building on the distinction between task and relationship behaviors, SLT requires leaders to dynamically calibrate directive and supportive actions. Readiness is operationalized as a combination of competence (knowledge and skill) and commitment (motivation and confidence).
The framework identifies four developmental levels of readiness, ranging from low (lacking both skill and motivation) to high (capable and confident). Leaders match these levels with four corresponding styles: Telling (S1) for low readiness, providing high direction; Selling (S2) for moderate readiness, combining direction with persuasion; Participating (S3) for higher-moderate readiness, focusing on shared decision-making; and Delegating (S4) for high readiness, granting maximum autonomy (Daft, 2014; Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). While SLT has been critiqued for its prescriptive nature, it remains a foundational model for viewing leadership as a context-dependent practice rather than a static trait (Obolensky, 2014).
Complex Adaptive Leadership
Expanding on situational foundations, Obolensky (2014) introduced Complex Adaptive Leadership, which integrates systems thinking and complexity science to foster “polyarchic” (multicentered) organizational structures. This model seeks to resolve the friction between traditional hierarchical mindsets and the fluid demands of volatile environments. Obolensky identifies three pillars for navigating complexity: a conceptual roadmap for environmental scanning, “simple rules” that enable coherent action without rigid top-down control, and “attractors” that align emergent behaviors with organizational goals.
Within this framework, leadership is reframed as a repertoire of “push” (directive/telling) and “pull” (facilitative/delegating) behaviors. This approach parallels the adaptive leadership model of Heifetz et al. (2009), which distinguishes between technical problems and adaptive challenges. Both frameworks emphasize the necessity of “working the will,” devolving authority, and encouraging independent judgment across the system. Mastery of adaptive leadership thus requires a leader to move fluidly through these phases, transitioning from directive control to the “S4 Devolve Space,” where leadership capacity is distributed throughout the organization.
Coaching and Leadership Development
The transition from directive to adaptive leadership requires transformative learning. Knowles’ (1980) andragogical model and Kolb's (1984) experiential learning theory suggest that leaders develop capacity through a cyclical process of concrete experience, reflection, and active experimentation. Adaptive leadership specifically requires transformative learning, in which leaders critically examine and reconstruct the mental models that govern their habitual responses to uncertainty (Mezirow, 1997).
Empirical research highlights coaching as an essential mechanism for operationalizing these theories. Ely et al. (2010) found that coaching improves behavioral flexibility and ambiguity management, while Hall et al. (2019) demonstrated that cohort-based programs enhance reflective capacity and collaborative decision-making (Graßmann et al., 2020; Passmore & Liu, 2020). By integrating structured feedback, coaching enables practitioners to internalize complex thinking and enact the “pull” behaviors necessary for organizational adaptability.
In the context of evidence-based coaching, the transition to delegation is viewed as a developmental move from a “socialized” mind to a “self-authoring” mind (Kegan & Lahey, 2009). Coaching provides the “holding space” necessary for leaders to experiment with the vulnerability of letting go. Unlike training, which focuses on the technical skills of delegation, coaching addresses the adaptive challenge of the leader's identity, allowing for the reconstruction of mental models regarding control and accountability (Bachkirova, 2011).
Sustainable Leadership
Sustainable leadership extends the logic of adaptive capacity by emphasizing long-term systemic health and ethical stewardship. Ferdig (2007) defines this as the cocreation of a sustainable future through systems awareness and moral agency. This perspective is often illustrated by the contrast between “honeybee” leadership, which focuses on enduring stakeholder value, and “locust” leadership, which prioritizes extractive, short-term gains (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2011). Recent work reinforces this link; Latifah (2024) demonstrated that adaptive leadership significantly enhances organizational sustainability, a relationship mediated by employee engagement (Ionescu et al., 2021). Ultimately, the synthesis of adaptive and sustainable leadership theories suggests that long-term success depends on a leader's ability to manage interdependence and uncertainty within broader social systems.
Hypotheses Development
Building on the integration of SLT and complex adaptive leadership, this study empirically tests the friction points between theoretical readiness and behavioral enactment. While SLT posits a rational alignment between leader behavior and follower maturity, the literature on psychological barriers and organizational complexity indicates systemic resistance to full devolution. Consequently, the following hypotheses are proposed.
Distribution of Leadership Styles
The foundational models of Hersey and Blanchard (1982) and Obolensky (2014) suggest that, within a diverse organizational ecosystem, leadership behaviors should be distributed across all four quadrants to align with varying levels of follower readiness and contextual demands. In practice, however, emerging evidence points to a disproportionate concentration in high-involvement, high-control behaviors, indicating a potential imbalance in leadership enactment.
The Role of Psychological Barriers and Coaching
The transition to S4 (Delegating) extends beyond a technical evaluation of follower competence and requires a shift in the leader's internal locus of control. As Mezirow (1997) suggests, such shifts are often constrained by identity-level resistance, particularly when leaders perceive increased risk or accountability associated with relinquishing control.
Research Methodology
Research Design
This study employed a cross-sectional, correlational research design using a mixed-methods approach. Quantitative data were used to test the primary hypotheses regarding leadership style distribution and the impact of coaching, while qualitative thematic analysis was used to explore the underlying psychological mechanisms of the “delegation gap.”
Operationalization of Variables
To ensure methodological rigor, the following variables were operationalized using validated scales and structured assessment tools:
Data Collection and Sampling
Data were collected from two distinct but related cohorts to provide a multidimensional view of leadership enactment:
Development cohort ( Formal training group (n = 65): Received three 1-day workshops focused on the mechanics of situational leadership and delegation techniques. Managerial coaching group (n = 65): Received six 90-min individual coaching sessions focused on reflective practice. The coaching followed a developmental-behavioral approach, utilizing the GROW model as a framework but focusing heavily on the leader's internal response to risk and accountability. Coaches were International Coaching Federation-certified with a minimum of 500 h of experience. This comparative design allows for a rigorous assessment of coaching's unique contribution to behavioral change.
To ensure the robustness of the conclusions, the following statistical procedures were performed:
Research Findings and Analysis
This section details the study's principal findings, examining how adaptive leadership manifests across organizational contexts and its influence on leadership enactment. The results are interpreted through the dual lenses of situational leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) and complex adaptive leadership (Obolensky, 2014). These frameworks provide a robust mechanism for understanding how leaders calibrate their behavior, balancing task-oriented “push” and relationship-oriented “pull” strategies in response to follower readiness and environmental complexity.
As shown in Table 1, Obolensky's (2014) global executive research indicates that the Selling style (S2) dominates leadership behavior at 43%, followed by Participating (S3) at 32%. The Delegating style (S4), which represents full devolution of authority, is markedly underutilized at only 8%. This distribution suggests that while leaders are moving away from autocratic Telling (S1), they remain engaged in directive and relational behaviors and struggle to fully transition to devolved leadership.
The Situational Leadership Model (Obolensky, 2014).
Key insight: This represents findings from a global study of executives, showing that the S2 Selling style (43%) was most prevalent, whereas the S4 Delegating style (8%) was significantly underutilized. While an ideal organizational state would see an equitable 25% distribution across the four situational quadrants, Obolensky identified a heavy concentration in S2 (Selling/43%) and S3 (Participating/32%). Most notably, the S4 (Delegating/Devolving) style is markedly underutilized, with only 8% of executives employing it.
As shown in Table 2, our study of 620 leaders across diverse sectors shows the preference for Selling (S2) is even more pronounced, at 65%, with Participating (S3) at 33% and Delegating (S4) nearly absent, at 2%. This significant skew away from the ideal equal distribution (25% per style) indicates a systemic reluctance to fully delegate authority. The chi-square goodness-of-fit test confirms this imbalance is statistically significant (χ2(3, N = 620) = 631.90, p < .001). Notably, many leaders who identify primarily with Participating (S3) also maintain Selling (S2) as a secondary style, suggesting a developmental ceiling that limits the empowerment of mature teams.
Situational Leadership (Current Study).
Key insight: The current study shows an even stronger preference for S2 Selling (65%), with S4 Delegating nearly absent (2%). This represents a shift away from transformational leadership (S3) toward more directive, engaging styles. The distribution of leadership strategies differs markedly from an equal 25%/25%/25%/25% split. A chi-square goodness-of-fit test indicated that the observed distribution of leadership strategies differed significantly from an equal distribution across the four strategies (χ2(3) = 631.90, p < .001).
Turning to the complex adaptive leadership framework, Table 3 (from Obolensky's study) shows that the Involve strategy (Strategy 3) is most prevalent at 44%, whereas the Devolve strategy (Strategy 4) remains low at 9%. This reinforces the observation that full delegation is underutilized even in adaptive leadership contexts.
Complex Adaptive Leadership Model (Obolensky, 2014).
Key insight: Strategy 3 Involve (44%) dominated, whereas Strategy 4 Devolve (full delegation) accounted for only 9%, confirming the underutilization of delegation approaches.
Our study's findings in Table 4 reinforce this trend, with an even stronger preference for Involve (Strategy 3) at 69%, whereas the Tell, Sell, and Devolve strategies remain below expected levels. This pronounced concentration on participatory leadership styles, coupled with minimal delegation, highlights a persistent behavioral plateau in which leaders engage followers but hesitate to relinquish control.
Complex Adaptive Leadership Model (Our Study).
Key insight: An even more pronounced preference is driven primarily by Strategy 3 (Involve), which is far higher than expected (69% observed vs. 25% expected), whereas Tell/Sell/Devolve are all below the expected 25%.
Hypothesis Testing Results
The empirical results of this study provide a comprehensive validation of the proposed theoretical model. As summarized in Table 5, all six hypotheses were supported, offering a statistically rigorous explanation for the “delegation gap” observed in contemporary leadership.
Summary of Hypothesis Testing.
Distribution of Leadership Styles (H1 and H2)
A chi-square goodness-of-fit test was conducted to evaluate whether leadership styles were distributed equally across the four quadrants of the situational leadership framework. The results (
Psychological Barriers and the Mediation of Delegation (H3)
To understand why leaders fail to transition to S4, a mediation analysis using Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) bootstrapping method was performed. The results supported H3, revealing that psychological barriers, specifically “Accountability Anxiety” and “Perceived Risk,” significantly mediated the relationship between follower readiness and the enactment of S4 behaviors. The 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect did not include zero, suggesting that even when followers demonstrate high competence, the leader's internal psychological state acts as a “gatekeeper” that prevents the devolution of authority.
Impact of Coaching and Reflective Capacity (H4 and H6)
The study further examined the efficacy of development interventions. Regression analysis supported H4, showing that reflective capacity was a significant positive predictor of S4 frequency (
Moderating Role of Psychological Safety (H5)
Finally, a moderated regression analysis was conducted to test the influence of organizational climate. The results supported H5, indicating a significant interaction between coaching and psychological safety (
Summary of Findings
The combined data from both leadership models and studies suggest that contemporary leaders have largely abandoned autocratic Telling but remain “stuck” in a high-effort loop of Selling and Involving behaviors. This limits organizational scalability and innovation by maintaining centralized control. To foster true organizational resilience, leadership development must prioritize the transition to Devolution (S4), with coaching identified as a critical mechanism for elevating follower readiness and enabling distributed leadership.
Discussion
These findings suggest that the failure to transition to S4 not only reflects a behavioral limitation but also represents a critical constraint on an organization's adaptive capacity. Moreover, the findings of this study provide empirical confirmation of a persistent “delegation gap” and offer a new theoretical lens, the Illusion of Empowerment, to explain why leaders struggle to transition into devolved authority. Although literature has long advocated adaptive leadership, our results suggest that the transition to the S4 (Delegating) quadrant is constrained by a complex interplay of psychological and environmental factors.
Illusion of Empowerment as a Behavioral Plateau
Support for H1 and H2 reveals a stark reality: only 2% of leaders in a sample of 620 employed the Delegating style. This concentration in S2 (Selling) and S3 (Participating) behaviors suggests that modern leadership has evolved from “autocracy” to “consultation,” but has stopped short of “devolution.” This is the essence of the Illusion of Empowerment. Leaders interpret high-frequency interaction and shared discussion as evidence of empowerment, yet the statistical scarcity of S4 behaviors indicates that final decision-making authority remains centralized. This “high-effort loop” creates a developmental ceiling that prevents organizations from achieving true polyarchic resilience.
Psychological Gatekeeper: Mediation by Accountability Anxiety
The most significant contribution of this study lies in the support for H3, which identifies psychological barriers as a formal mediator. This finding refutes the traditional assumption in SLT that leaders will rationally delegate once follower readiness is high. Instead, our data suggests that the leader's internal state, specifically Accountability Anxiety, acts as a “gatekeeper.” Even when followers are objectively ready, the leader's subjective perception of risk prevents the enactment of S4 behaviors. This suggests that the “delegation gap” is not a failure of the follower to be ready, but a failure of the leader to “let go,” driven by an identity-level need to remain the organization's central sense-maker.
Coaching as the Catalyst for Identity Shift
The validation of H4 and H6 underscores that technical training is insufficient to bridge this gap. Because the barrier to delegation is psychological, the intervention must be reflective. Our findings show that coaching, by increasing Reflective Capacity (
Boundary Conditions of Psychological Safety
Finally, the support for H5 provides a critical boundary condition for leadership development. The finding that Psychological Safety moderates the efficacy of coaching suggests that individual development cannot be divorced from organizational culture. In “low-safety” environments, even the most self-aware leader may default to S2/S3 behaviors to mitigate personal risk. This implies that for adaptive leadership to take root, organizations must simultaneously address the leader's internal mindset through coaching and the external culture through systemic safety. Moreover, coaching is the tool that helps leaders navigate low-psychological-safety environments (Figure 1).
The Illusion of Empowerment and the delegation gap in adaptive leadership (conceptual figure).
Implications
The findings of this study highlight a critical and persistent delegation gap in adaptive leadership practice, driven largely by the Illusion of Empowerment, where leaders involve followers without truly devolving authority. To bridge this gap and foster authentic empowerment, organizations and leadership development professionals should consider the following practical strategies.
Reframe Delegation as Strategic Empowerment, Not Abdication
Organizations must shift the narrative around delegation from a perceived loss of control to a strategic investment in building organizational resilience and agility. Leaders need to understand that authentic delegation (S4) is not about relinquishing responsibility but about distributing it in ways that enhance collective capacity and innovation.
Action: Explicitly integrate this reframing into leadership development curricula and organizational communications to reduce leaders’ anxiety about losing authority.
Implement Coaching as Psychological Scaffolding for Leaders
Managerial coaching should be positioned as a core leadership development intervention that supports leaders in navigating the psychological and identity shifts required to move from S2/S3 to S4 behaviors. Coaching provides a safe space for leaders to explore fears related to accountability, control, and risk, and to develop the self-awareness and tolerance for ambiguity necessary for authentic delegation. While formal training remains a valuable element of leadership development, this study underscores coaching as the primary mechanism for dismantling the psychological barriers that inhibit full delegation. It offers leaders a reflective environment to reframe their relationship with control, fostering the mindset shifts necessary for authentic empowerment. Organizations should embed coaching deeply within leadership programs, ensuring it complements experiential learning and action learning approaches (Ely et al., 2010; Graßmann et al., 2020).
By contrast, traditional formal training programs, which often emphasize knowledge transfer and skill acquisition, may not adequately address the identity and emotional challenges leaders face when transitioning from directive to devolved leadership styles. Therefore, a blended approach that centers coaching as a catalyst for transformative learning will more effectively prepare leaders to embrace the “art of inaction” and cultivate resilient, polyarchic organizations.
Action: Establish coaching networks or embed coaching practices within leadership programs, emphasizing reflective practice and transformative learning to dismantle the Illusion of Empowerment.
Cultivate Psychological Safety to Support Distributed Leadership
Psychological safety is foundational to followers’ acceptance of devolved authority and to leaders’ sense of security in delegating. Organizations should foster cultures that reward collective problem-solving and tolerate failure as part of adaptive learning.
Action: Train leaders and teams to create and sustain psychological safety through tools such as team debriefs, open feedback channels, and recognition of learning-oriented behaviors.
Experiential and Action Learning to Build Delegation Competence
Experiential learning approaches, such as action learning sets or stretch assignments, allow leaders to practice “pull” behaviors in low-risk environments. These experiences build trust, confidence, and competence in both leaders and followers, facilitating the transition to the S4 Devolve space.
Action: Deploy experiential stretch assignments and action learning sets that require leaders to practice S4 behaviors, as these collaborative learning-oriented behaviors are essential for translating adaptive leadership into sustained organizational engagement (Ionescu et al., 2021).
Address Organizational Culture and Structural Barriers
Finally, organizations must critically assess and address cultural norms and structural incentives that reinforce centralized control and individual heroics. Without systemic change, leaders will continue to default to the Illusion of Empowerment.
Action: Align performance management, reward systems, and leadership expectations to value distributed leadership and collective accountability.
Conclusion: From Heroic Control to Systemic Resilience
This study has empirically identified a critical “delegation gap” that persists despite the widespread adoption of adaptive leadership rhetoric. While modern leaders have successfully transitioned away from autocratic “Telling,” they remain largely anchored in an Illusion of Empowerment.
This represents a high-effort loop of selling and involving (S2/S3) that preserves centralized authority while offering only the appearance of collaboration. The statistically significant scarcity of the S4/Devolve style (2%) suggests that the primary barrier to organizational agility is not a lack of follower readiness, but a leader-centric resistance to relinquishing control.
The findings underscore that the transition to devolved authority is not merely a tactical adjustment but a profound identity shift. It requires leaders to move from being the “Expert-in-Chief” to becoming the “Architect-of-Capability.” This research highlights coaching as the essential catalyst for this transformation, providing the psychological scaffolding leaders need to navigate the anxiety of accountability and embrace the “art of inaction.”
For organizations to thrive in increasingly complex and volatile environments, leadership development must move beyond technical skill-building toward transformative, reflective practices. By bridging the gap between adaptive theory and behavioral enactment, organizations can dismantle the Illusion of Empowerment and cultivate truly resilient, polyarchic systems capable of sustained innovation and distributed leadership. The capacity to let go is no longer a secondary leadership trait; it is the definitive competency for the future of organizational development.
Limitations and Future Research
While this study benefits from a large, heterogeneous sample, it relies primarily on leader self-assessments, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Future research should employ multirater (360-degree) feedback to compare leader self-perceptions with follower experiences. Additionally, longitudinal studies are needed to determine if coaching interventions lead to sustained shifts in S4/Devolve behaviors over time. Finally, exploring the moderating role of organizational culture, specifically psychological safety, could provide deeper insights into why some leaders successfully transition to adaptive delegation while others remain anchored in directive styles.
Final Summary
In an era defined by relentless disruption and complex challenges, the capacity to distribute leadership is no longer optional; it is essential for organizational survival. This study demonstrates that although the roadmap for adaptive leadership is well-defined, the journey toward full delegation remains incomplete. By bridging the gap between adaptive theory and behavioral practice through structured coaching and reflective development, organizations can cultivate resilient, polyarchic systems that thrive in an increasingly complex global landscape.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.