We spend a lot of time, energy, and money on leadership. There's a mantra that organizations are successful because of their leaders, and so we try to learn as much as we possibly can about how these leaders led their organizations to success. Yet in doing so, we often neglect another very important component of success - the followers!
Recall from my recent post ("Learn to follow, then learn to lead...") how the management expert Peter Drucker defined leadership. He said, "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers." While it's certainly not that simple, the fact remains that organizations are successful because of how well their leaders lead, as well as how well their followers follow.
The Civil War hero William T. Sherman, who was an excellent follower too, by the way, reportedly once said, "We have good corporals and good sergeants and some good lieutenants and captains, and those are far more important than good generals." General Sherman was a servant leader who recognized the importance of his middle managers (the lieutenants and captains), as well as the front-line leaders (sergeants) and followers (corporals).
So, how do you become a good follower? For as much as has been written about leadership, followership has received far less attention. Yet, there are some excellent articles on followership. There's an excellent one published in 1988 in Harvard Business Review 1988 by Robert E. Kelley called "In Praise of Followers". Kelley presented a framework using the classic 2x2 matrix, in which the vertical axis measures the degree to which followers exercise independent, critical thinking and the horizontal axis ranks the followers on a passive/active scale. He then suggested that there are five different followership patterns (see the figure below).
Followers who Kelley describes as "Sheep" (Passive, Dependent/Uncritical thinking) are the individuals in the organization who fail to act on their own. They don't take initiative or accept responsibility for anything. They do their job and nothing more.
The followers that Kelley describes as "Yes People" are just as bad as the "Sheep", maybe even worse. These individuals blindly follow the leader, regardless of whether the leader deserves to be followed or not. The "Yes People" are completely dependent upon the leader for guidance and inspiration and are what Kelley describes as "aggressively deferential" (the combination of "Yes People" with a charismatic leader with questionable morals and integrity is particularly dangerous).
"Alienated Followers" are the individuals who can think independently and critically about how to solve a particular problem or issue, yet they are passive in the execution of the solution. These individuals are often cynical and over time may even become disgruntled.
The "Survivors" stand in the middle of Kelley's 2x2 matrix. They are generally conservative and play it safe. At the same time, they generally adapt well to change. It's as if they just "go with the flow" and follow the proverbial direction of the winds.
The last group of followers that Kelley described are the individuals who think and act independently. The "Effective Followers" are the individuals who are self-starters and risk-takers. They take their own initiative and can succeed even in the absence of good leadership. As Chester Barnard wrote in The Functions of the Executive over 80 years ago, "The decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the person to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in 'persons of authority' or those who issue orders."
"Effective Followers" exhibit a number of important characteristics:
1. Self-management
2. Commitment
3. Competence
4. Focus
5. Courage
6. Honesty
7. Credibility
Some would argue that the typical model of training "leadership" has not worked. Perhaps that is because we have focused far less attention on developing good followers. Leadership and followership are tightly linked and mutually dependent. Leadership development is important, but a growing body of literature suggests that we should devote just as much time and energy on training individuals to be good followers.
Robert Kelley's article in Harvard Business Review also provides some recommendations on cultivating followership. He writes, "You may have noticed by now that the qualities that make effective followers are, confusingly enough, pretty much the same qualities found in some effective leaders." Here's the key point - leadership and followership are roles that individuals play in the organization. What distinguishes leaders from followers may not have anything to do with the traits or qualities they possess, but rather the role that they play in the organization. Kelley goes on to say that "effective followers and effective leaders are often the same people playing different parts at different hours of the day." In other words, an individual could be in the role of a "leader" and a "follower" at different times of the day.
Kelley recommends four steps to cultivate "Effective Followers" in your organization:
1. Redefining Followership and Leadership: Again, as suggested in the paragraph above, we need to view leadership and followership from the viewpoint that leaders and followers are positions that individuals occupy, not as distinct traits or characteristics that individuals possess. Similarly, we should adopt the framework that leaders and followers are mutually dependent and not hierarchical in nature. In other words, leaders are not superior to the followers. Instead, they are equally important but distinct roles that these individuals fill in the organization. That sounds a lot like the HRO principle of "Deference to Expertise" doesn't it? Kelley describes the relationship between leaders and followers in this manner: "People who are effective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to achieve consensus, the verbal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups of individuals, the organizational talent to coordinate disparate efforts, and above all, the desire to lead." Similarly, "People who are effective in follower roles have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to either, and above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose." At one point or another, all of us play to the role of leader and follower - the success of the organization depends upon our ability to play both roles equally well!
2. Honing Followership Skills: Unfortunately, a lot of us commonly assume that leadership has to be taught (see for example, "Practice makes better, but does Practice make perfect?"), but that everyone knows how to follow. Kelley writes, "This assumption is based upon three faulty premises: (1) that leaders are more important than followers, (2) that following is simply doing what you are told to do, and (3) that followers are inevitably draw their energy and aims, even their talent, from the leader." Followership, just like leadership, is not only a learned skill, it is an equally important one. Organizations can train followership skills by emphasizing topics such as (1) self-management, improving independent, (2) critical thinking, (3) disagreeing agreeably (conflict management), (4) aligning personal and organizational goals and commitments, and (5) moving between followership and leadership roles seamlessly.
3. Performance Evaluation and Feedback: Building upon the discussion in #2 above, performance evaluation should focus on building both leadership and followership.
4. Organizational Structures That Encourage Followership: Organizations can help foster effective followership by incorporating certain structural changes such as self-managed teams (see the Harvard Business Review article "Beyond the Holocracy Hype" for a great discussion on this subject), rotating leadership of teams (for example, some organizations have "term limits" for certain roles and positions within the organization), and encouraging the HRO concept of "Deference to Expertise" (delegating responsibility to the lowest level). Check out how Nordstrom's ("The Tire Story") empowers front-line employees to make decisions as one example. Alternatively, read about how the military encourages followership (and by extension, leadership) through the concepts of "commander's intent" and "deference to expertise" ("We rely upon your ability...you know what to do").
I will end this post, as I frequently do, with a couple of quotes on followership. Helen Keller said, "The world is moved not only by the mighty shoves of heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker." The writer and magazine editor Merle Crowell wrote, "It is the men behind who make the man ahead." Finally, the author Edith Wharton said, "There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it." Learn and strive to be both a candle and a mirror.
No comments:
Post a Comment