I was recently asked to review the details of an application pack for a senior leader role in a moderately sized organisation; the role effectively bridged the gap between middle and senior leadership. As application packs go it was a good one. It was engaging, informative and the leadership team came across as highly competent and personable. Notably, it referred to a number of hot topics including emotional intelligence, engaging and developing staff and working with teams; topics that are close to my heart. There were lots of reasons that potential candidates would find the role and the organisation attractive.
However, two sentences made me pause for thought. Those same sentences stayed with me for the next few weeks and culminated in me writing this. Those sentences were written by the CEO and so reflected the values of the organisation or at least a value that the new CEO wanted embedding. Those sentences were:
“We want leaders. We do not want followers”
Now, it could be that the CEO meant to demonstrate that the successful applicant would be required to drive change or to give direction to a group of followers. However, the position, nestled between senior and middle leadership, would imply that the successful candidate would be both a leader and a follower (as so many people are). However, the CEO did not want followers.
“You’re gonna have to serve somebody.” — Bob Dylan
I have to say that I would be more than willing to accept that the CEO intended a different message to be given. However, for the purposes of this article I will take the stance that the CEO simply did not want followers. What is it about that stance that struck such a chord that I had it stayed with me for so long? Why do I think that this CEO needs to reconsider his stance? What impact might this stance have on the performance of the organisation?
The answer to the first question is easy; if nobody is following then you aren’t a leader. A person might well have worked their way into a leadership position, but it is the actions of others that determines whether they are a real leader. Indeed, as is happening with a middle ‘leader’ in my current organisation, the people who he formally leads are choosing to leave rather than to follow. He is the direct opposite of a leader, an anti-leader (a future topic to be explored perhaps). Fortunately, the body of research on leadership indicates that he could turn the situation around.
The importance of followers is well supported by a range of commentators. For example, the late (and great) Warren Bennis stated that the success of leaders should be determined through the people that choose to follow. Not only does he acknowledge the necessity of having followers, but also that the success of leaders, and presumably organisational success, is determined by followers. This view was supported by Merle Crowell when he said “It is the men behind who make the man ahead.”. The importance of followers to leader success was also recognised by Shaun S. Lott (“You don’t have to have a Type A personality to be a leader, but it is imperative you have Type A followers”). Indeed, the importance of followers and effective followership has been recognised by a wide range of personalities. Unfortunately, the role of followers is still seen as less important, less sexy than that of a leader; leadership has received a great deal of attention from academics, authors, sports people (e.g Deontay Wilder and Stefon Diggs) and celebrities whereas followership hasn’t. Perhaps the CEO who inspired this article was influenced by the attention that leadership has received. Maybe they should have looked at the research into followers and followership before forming an opinion?
A Brief History of Followership
Some of the key work pertaining to followership is described below; I do not mean to describe every piece of work just milestones that in our understanding.
In 1992, Robert Kelley identified five follower types (sheep, yes-people, pragmatics, alienated and star followers) that were classified based on their independence and whether they were active or passive. Whilst the classification of followers is interesting, the fact that I can think of people (including myself) who have morphed between the types depending on the style of leadership is also important. For example, under my previous headteacher (I currently work in education) I was widely recognised as a star follower who was a ‘man of answers’ but also somebody who would question and challenge (albeit respectfully and in the right forum). However, another leader comes to mind who behaved rather unprofessionally by lying to protect himself and attempting to use bullying behaviours on others. Whilst I maintained my independent nature whilst working under them, I must say that I was erring towards alienated followership; the behaviour of the leader shaped my behaviour as a follower.
Barbara Kellerman, a distinguished academic, also classified followers based on the extent to which they engage with the leadership process. They could be low on participation (isolates and bystanders) or markedly higher on participation (participants, activists and diehards). These latter groups might favour or oppose the leader and act accordingly! As with Kelley’s classifications, followers can be active, energetic and independent or entirely passive and it would be expected that leadership behaviour could influence which type of followership behaviour comes to the fore.
“Followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers.” — Barbara Kellerman
By now, it should be evident that followers are not necessarily passive people acting on direction (despite leadership research sometimes assuming that it is this way); at least some classes of followers were seen as people who could make or break the leader because they were active, dynamic and / or independent. This is captured in Ira Chaleff’s Courageuous Followership Model which identified dimensions in which courageous followers operated in a group and a further dimension where they operated either within a group or outside of it. A flavour of this model and its expectations of followers can be gleaned from the titles of the dimensions: Assume responsibility; to serve; to challenge; to participate in transformation and to take moral action.
At this point I think it is worth considering that our CEO wanted people who might well be described as courageous followers, star followers or, in Jimmy Collins’s terms, creative followers but who could also lead people effectively.
“If I had to reduce the responsibilities of a good follower to a single rule, it would be to speak truth to power.”— Warren Bennis
Hurwitz and Hurwitz explicitly stated that leaders and followers have complementary roles in their Generative Partnership Model. They described in detail how leaders and followers should behave in relation to decisions, performance, the organisation, communicating and relationships. Again, the role of the follower is an active one where the leader works in partnership with the followers with each enabling the other to perform highly.
“[Good followers] support and aid the leader when he or she is doing the right thing, and stand up to the leader—having the courage to let the leader know when he or she is doing something wrong or headed in the wrong direction.”
What happens when it goes wrong?
The emergent view is that followers have an important role that is complementary to that of leaders. Leadership is important so let us not understate that, but followers are too. Followers have a variety of important roles. They enable leaders to lead; they feedback to leaders on how effective their strategy and its implementation is; they work creatively within the framework provided by leadership and drive progress to name but a few. But what happens when it goes wrong, when the leader-follower dance doesn’t happen? What happens when followers aren’t courageous, when they are too passive, when followers are silent or when they aren’t prepared to challenge the decisions of leaders? For example, when the information flow is one directional from the top down and leadership behaviours are controlling behaviours?
Dennis Tourish has explored this idea and the answer is compelling. This type of leader-follower relationship has been identified in a variety of toxic situations. To name a few: Enron; The Bay of Pigs; the recent crisis with banks and a variety of cults linked to mass suicides. These are all well publicised and deeply studied events that it would be easy to dismiss as freak events. However, I recognise the hallmarks of these situations around me: silence in the workplace; coercive persuasion; ideology taking on a spiritual approach and excessive leader agency. Whilst the situations around us are usually smaller, less toxic and less impactful, they are still there. Strong followership could reduce or remove them entirely. However, it would require leadership to build on and encourage strong followership behaviour. I am not sure that the CEO who inspired this work would be receptive to this idea. He would not be alone as historically, for example, the Columbia space shuttle disaster was ultimately caused by leaders failing to listen to followers.
Why is strong followership important?
If I were to try to summarise why followers and their interaction with leaders is important, I would have to say:
· Strong followers enable leaders to act most effectively as they move towards a shared vision and high performance
· Strong followers protect the organisation from the self-centred motives of some
We might also draw on research into the various styles of leadership, participation and engagement and postulate that enabling strong followership would lead to:
· Increased attendance
· Increased loyalty
· Lower turnover
· Lower stress levels
· Higher levels of discretionary effort
· Highly effective teams
All of which makes a strong argument for encouraging followership rather than avoiding it as our CEO did. Of course, I could be wrong, and I will watch in interest as this new CEO strives to improve the performance of the schools under his charge.
Suggested reading
Chaleff, Ira; The Courageous Follower. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 1995
Hurwitz, Marc., Hurwitz, Samantha: Leadership is Half the Story: A fresh look at followership, leadership and collaboration. London: University of Toronto Press, 2015
Kellerman, Barbara: Followership: How Followers and Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Massachussetts: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008
Riggio, Ronald. E., Chaleff, Ira., Lipman-Blumen, Jean; The Art of Followership: How great followers create great leaders and organisations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008
Comments