A leader alone cannot accomplish a goal or vision by oneself. There is a built in assumption in our society that everybody should strive to be a leader. That’s where the fame and fortune are—with the leaders. “You can get a PhD in organizational leadership, but you can’t even get a bachelor’s in followership.” (Mercer) Why should an organization focus on followership as much as leadership? The Merriam Webster dictionary defines followership as “the capacity or willingness to follow a leader”. Over the last several years, there’s been a huge interest in leadership. However, former HP Executive Vice President, Vyomesh Joshi, shared that the key to being a great leader is not about leadership but instead the real attribute is followership and that potential leaders should always ask themselves “Why would anyone want to follow me?” (Peterson) There is a dynamic mutual benefit and support between the leader and the follower. Because of certain changes in culture and technology, followership is becoming more and more important. They both need each other. Leadership and followership cannot work without the other. In the late 20th century, Robert Kelley, Ira Challef and Rodger Adair reexamined leadership. Each of these scholars had focused their attention to the development and structure of followership in 3 different models. Robert Kelley estimates that leaders on average contribute no more than 20% to the success of an organization, while so-called followers are responsible for the remaining 80%. (Bryne) His Followership Model describes the followers into five different categories: passive followers, conformist followers, alienated followers, pragmatist followers, and exemplary followers. These followers are required to see t... ... middle of paper ... ...eadership and followership is decidedly useful, productive and profitable in today’s workplace. Works Cited Mercer, Don. "Followership: the Corollary to Leadership." toddnielsen.com. N.p., 20 March 2012. Web. 16 Feb 2014. Spalding, Tim. "Followership is as Important as Leadership." Knockalla Consulting. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb 2014. Peterson, Gary. "Leadership 310: The Four Principles of 'Followership'." Forbes. N.p., 23 April 2013. Web. 17 Feb 2014. Bryne, John. "Management's New Gurus." Bloomberg Businessweek. N.p., 30 Aug 1992. Web. 17 Feb 2014. Cooley, Michael . "Jimmy Collins." Creative Followership. , 07 May 2013. Web. 17 Feb 2014. Burlingham, Bo. "The Re-Education of Jim Collins." Inc: the Playbook. N.p., Oct 2013. Web. 17 Feb 2014. Jurack, James. "Followership: When Leadership Is Not Enough ." Birchwood Consulting. N.p., Nov 2006. Web. 17 Feb 2014.
Küpers, W. (2007). Perspectives on Integrating Leadership and Followership. Retrieved 4 22, 2014, from International Journal of Leadership Studies: http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol2iss3/kupers/kupers.htm
Sendjaya, S. (2005). Leading with the heart: Servant leadership put other people’s needs, aspirations and interests above their own. Monash Business Review, 1(2). 34-41.
Barbara Kellerman is a unique theorist – she was one of the first theorists to focus the bulk of her research on something overlooked by other researchers: followers. Kellerman (2005) sees leadership in a way few others do: as a relationship that exists between leaders and followers and the context in which that relationship operates. By that logic followership must be an extension of leadership, rather than a result of it.
I see this type of behavior on a regular basis in our company. The managers that allow their teams to follow are most times driven by ambition. They do well with the sole purpose of rising through the corporate ladder. They see followership as a necessity. However, he/she most times believe they can be effective if they accept the value of learning the role and not asserting it. In my opinion these are the managers to move up the ranks and are well liked by their employees. In essence, leaders that have followers and not workers are distain to be
Paradigm shifts has changed the focus of leadership from the individual to “a relational process.” I think this change was necessary to acknowledge the fact that leaders generally have a team of supporters who help them achieve their goals. It is good that no one person gets all the credit for the effort of an entire group of dedicated yet unrecognized people. I believe that people’s underappreciation of these “backstage workers” contributes to the reduction of their roles and status. The term “followers” is generally neutral, but it can also have a slightly negative connotation. Because of this, I support that people are beginning to call them “constituents” or “co-creators”
Although it is imperative to learn about leadership characteristics, those of followers are equally as important. Respect for authority and interpersonal trust are two characteristics that influence the leadership process. “People who respect authority figures and have a trusting nature are led more easily than people who disregard authorities and are suspicious of others (Manning and Curtis, p.35, 2012). In today’s society, there is a steady decline in the level of trust employees place in their leadership team. Factors such as family structure, social structure, shared values, selfish agendas and self-interest all cause employees to distrust their leadership team. This shows how important it is for a leader to be transparent and customize his or her leadership approach to fit the mold of their
A followership is a process by which the individual performs the role of a follower or a supporter. These people would support the leader’s or the company’s goals and ideas and work towards achieving these desirable objectives (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). The focus of Kelly’s Typology of Followership is on the followers’ behavior and thinking elements. Kelly described different types of followers: sheep, alienated, yes person, survivor, and effective supporter. These categories also connect to dependent and independent critical and uncritical thinking. The model states: followers are more or less productive participants in the company’s activities and more or less in the critical thinking processes (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006, p.309). Kelly believed there are passive
Ivey Business Journal. (n.d.). Followership: the other side of leadership. Retrieved January 14, 2014 from http:iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/leadership/followership-the-other-side-of-leadership#.UtbFeaFMHIU
In this book, the authors Tom Rath and Barry Conchie examine the question “What are the keys to being an effective leader?” To answer this question they had a team that reviewed data collected from Gallup polls. The data came from interviews from 20,000 senior leaders, over a million teams and more than fifty years of Gallup Polls of the most admired leaders in the world. The authors then had the team do a study of more than 10,000 followers to find out why they follow the influential leaders in their life.
As defined by Kellerman (2008), there are five types of followers: bystanders, isolates, participants, activists, and diehards. At any given point, an organization can include members who fall into some or all of these categories. The isolates care very little for their leaders and the organization and generally just want to get the job done and do not respond well to leadership. In fact, isolates resent the idea of leadership. Bystanders on the other hand, are those followers who follow passively, observing from the side, rarely getting involved. They do not resent leadership as the isolates do, but offer very little support to the leaders. Participants care about the group/organization and generally want to make an impact, if they feel that the leader will support them. On the other hand, activists have strong beliefs about the organization and their leaders. If they agree with their leaders, they follow them almost blindly, but if they do not, they work to get rid of their leaders. Those employees with the highest level of engagement within an organization are diehards. If they agree with the path their leaders is taking them down is the right direction, they will follow. However, if they think their leader is destructive, “imposing goals on constituents without their agreement of regard for their long-term welfare” (Padilla et al., 2007, pg.177), then these followers
This theory shapes followers into future leaders by providing them a freedom to control their behavior, elevates followers’ concerns from physical to psychological needs, and inspires subordinates to consider a group rather than self-interests and communicates designed outcomes to let subordinates perceive changes as wealth while. Transforming leadership has an elevating effect on both sides, leader and the led, because it improves the level of conduct and human interaction.
Another author that has investigated the followership topic but asserts a few qualifications between her work and others is Kellerman. She characterizes her work as more descriptive than prescriptive as she considers there must be such a variety of variables impacting the followers behaviors that it is hard to be instructive. According to Kellerman (2008), there are two conceivable definitions about followers: “Followers can be defined by their rank: They are subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence then do their superiors”. And “followers can also be defined by their behavior: they go along with what someone else wants and intends”. Kellerman (2008) uses rank and behavior as determinants to characterize followers, focusing
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
The last characteristic an effective follower should possess is patience. There are times when people must relax and wait for events or time to pass regardless of whether they are a leader or a follower. On the other hand, there will also be times when people should push and not be satisfied with the status quo. Critical thinking is an important part of being both a good follower and a good leader.
The concept of followership has existed for decades, but only in relatively recent times has the idea received more attention. The dictionary definition of the word “followership” is “the capacity or willingness to support a leader”. In his 1988 book, The Power of Followership, noted followership scholar Robert E. Kelly found this to be lacking.