Travis Bradberry wrote an article for Forbes magazine in 2015 entitled, "Are you a leader or a follower?" It's generally a very good article, but the title suggests that there is an important distinction between leaders and followers. For example, Bradberry makes some really good points. First, Bradberry suggests (and I would agree) that leadership has nothing to do with your title. Similarly, leadership has nothing to do with authority or seniority.
Bradberry states clearly, "You're not a leader just because you have people reporting to you. And you don't suddenly become a leader once you reach a certain pay grade."
Similarly, as John Quincy Adams said, "If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader."
Second, Bradberry argues that "Anyone can become a follower, even while holding a leadership position." Unfortunately, his definition of "follower" is someone who is "a slave to the status quo" or someone who "lacks vision" or who doesn't motivate those around them to be their absolute best.
He goes on, "Leadership and followership are mindsets. They're completely different ways of looking at the world. One is reactive, and the other is proactive. One is pessimistic; the other is optimistic. Where one sees a to-do list, the other sees possibilities."
Ouch. Bradberry clearly thinks that being a follower is a bad thing. Or at least he thinks that being a follower is not a desirable thing. Unfortunately, I think Bradberry misses an important point. There is nothing wrong with being a follower. In fact, one could certainly argue that without followers, there would be no leaders. As the leadership expert, Barbara Kellerman stated, "Followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers." Almost by definition, you cannot be a leader unless you have followers.
Individuals often self-identify as leaders versus followers. More importantly, there are a number of studies that suggest that individuals who self-identify as leaders are more likely to exhibit prototypical leadership behaviors (self-confidence, self-esteem, group dominance, etc.). The converse (do individuals who identify as followers exhibit good leadership) is not necessarily true, or at least this particular question has not been studied. The more relevant question therefore becomes, can good followers be good leaders? There are at least a few studies that suggest that being a good follower will increase an individual's capacity to influence a group. In other words, good followers can be good leaders too. There is at least one recent study from the University of Queensland in Australia that suggest this to be the case.
Kim Peters and Alex Haslam conducted a study involving slightly over 200 Australian Royal Marine recruits going through their 32-week training program. They tracked whether individual recruits self-identified as leaders versus followers on five separate occasions during their training. In addition, the recruits' leadership and followership was independently assessed and rated by both their commanding officers, as well as their peers. The results were somewhat surprising. Recruits who saw themselves as natural leaders were typically seen by their peers as leaders. Instead, it was the recruits who self-identified as followers that were rated by their peers as good leaders and ultimately emerged as leaders during the program.
Of interest, the recruits who self-identified as leaders were also rated by their commanding officers as having more leadership potential than recruits who self-identified as followers. Peters and Haslam concluded that what constitutes good leadership is highly dependent on where the evaluators are standing at the time. Those who are part of the group and able to personally experience the capacity of their fellow peers to influence the rest of the group are more likely to recognize even followers as being good leaders.
The way I see it, in order to be a good leader, you must learn to be a good follower. Individuals are more effective leaders when they are seen as part of the group - one of us - as opposed to one of them. Individuals are seen as leaders when they are doing it for us as opposed to doing it for themselves.
I will close this post with one last quote. Mike Bonem and Roger Patterson, in their book, "Leading from the Second Chair" once said, "If you believe lack of authority prevents you from leading effectively, it is time to rethink your understanding of leadership." Start by being a good follower. True influence - the sine qua non of leadership - will come after that.
No comments:
Post a Comment