It always starts the same way. A meeting is booked with good intentions. Someone has thought that this is important, that this will create direction, commitment and maybe even a little energy. But somewhere along the way something happens. The presentations get longer, the discussions shorter and the participants quieter. In the end, everyone is sitting there thinking the same thing, although no one says it out loud. Why does this feel like something we just have to get through?
The leader notices it too. He tries to spice up the meeting. Adds an exercise, changes the agenda, maybe even offers coffee. It helps for a while. Then you’re back there again.
It’s easy to think that the problem is the content. That better slides, more inspiring speeches or clearer goals are needed. But often the problem lies somewhere else.
When leadership becomes a bottleneck
In many organizations, it’s the same people who hold meetings, workshops and internal activities. It’s often logical. They’re used to it, they know the format and they have a mandate.
But it also creates an invisible limitation. When the same people set the framework every time, the variation becomes small. Perspectives narrow. The energy drops, not because the content is bad but because it has become predictable.
A kind of passivity arises in the room. Participants get used to someone else being in charge. That their role is to listen, react and sometimes contribute. But rarely to own.
And here something subtle but crucial happens. Commitment cannot be delegated to participants if ownership always lies with the same person.
The simple but inconvenient solution
What happens if you do the opposite? What if the solution is not to lead better, but to lead less?
Instead, letting the responsibility for meetings, workshops or theme days rotate between the participants changes the dynamic in a way that is often underestimated. Suddenly it is no longer someone else’s meeting. It is my meeting, next time.
It creates a different kind of presence. Not only when you hold it yourself, but also when others do it. You begin to see the whole picture. You begin to understand what is required.
What was previously a recurring activity becomes a shared process.
When perspectives are truly broadened
One of the most tangible effects of rolling responsibility is the variation. When different people get to hold the same type of forum, the content naturally changes.
Someone focuses on discussion. Someone else on concrete cases. A third might try something completely unexpected. It won’t always be perfect, but it will come alive.
It’s a bit like having different chefs cook the same dish. The result varies, but it never ends up tasting the same.
This variation is not only pleasant. It is crucial for creativity. New ideas arise when perspectives clash, not when the same thought is repeated in new formulations.
The humility that comes with responsibility
Another effect that often comes insidiously is humility. When you have to hold a meeting yourself, you quickly realize that it is not as easy as it looks.
It requires preparation. It requires energy. It requires reading the room and adapting to the moment.
This insight changes how you participate in other people’s meetings. You become more engaged, more respectful, and more likely to contribute.
It creates a culture where responsibility is not just something you talk about, but something you experience.
Structure as an enabler, not a constraint
But there is an important nuance here. Relinquishing control does not mean letting go of everything.
For many who are not used to facilitating, a completely free approach can feel overwhelming. The result can be uncertainty or falling back into the same old patterns.
That is why structure is important. Not as a way to control the content, but as a support.
A clear purpose for the meeting can go a long way. What should this forum contribute to? What is a good outcome?
A simple guideline about the balance between presentation and discussion can also help. If someone knows that the focus should be on dialogue rather than monologue, it will be easier to design the meeting.
And sometimes it is precisely the freedom that is the point. Saying that this is completely open, to try something new, can in itself be a powerful signal.
Structure in this context acts as a playing field. It does not limit the game, it makes it possible.
When the leader steps off the stage
An interesting aspect is what happens to the formal leader in this setup. It is easy to think that the leader is standing outside and supervising.
But it often works best when the leader is part of the rotation. When he also holds meetings, with the same conditions as everyone else.
It creates a different type of leadership. Less control, more participation. Less steering, more role model.
It shows that this is not a delegation of work, but a redistribution of responsibility.
The system effect that changes more than meetings
What starts as a method to improve meetings can have greater effects than you first think.
When more people gain experience in facilitating, planning and leading processes, a broader competence is built in the organization. More people understand how to drive work forward.
This not only affects internal forums, but also projects, collaborations and innovation.
It is a system shift in the small. From a few leading and many following, to more people being able and daring to take responsibility.
When it doesn’t work
It is also important to be honest that this doesn’t always work right away. In organizations with low trust or strong hierarchy, it can meet with resistance.
Some may feel uncomfortable. Others may experience it as an extra burden.
If the structure is unclear, it can become scattered. If the purpose is unclear, it can feel pointless.
It therefore requires a certain maturity and a clear why. It is not about avoiding leading, but about leading in a different way.
Cause and effect
Perhaps the most interesting insight is that commitment is rarely created by doing more for others, but by letting others do more themselves.
It is a small shift in behavior, but a big shift in effect.
And the next time you’re in a meeting that feels a little predictable, it might be worth asking a simple question.
What would happen if I wasn’t the one holding this next time?
