Good leaders need good followers. Some tips on 'followership'
Everyone complains about a lack of leadership. But where are the schools proclaiming that they will educate tomorrow's followers?
Cathy Copeland
Perhaps you’ve noticed leadership is all the rage. We cry out for leaders. We lament the absence of “real” leaders. Candidates promise they are leaders.
If you visit a bookstore and ask for the section on “leadership” you will find it to be well-stocked. Try asking for the section on “followership.” Chances are good you will get a puzzled look.
Or take a look at the promotional literature from the high-powered, or would be high-powered, colleges and universities. All of them claim to be in the business of “educating tomorrow’s leaders.” Somehow, it’s difficult to imagine a college that would trumpet the business of “educating good followers.”
Everyone, it seems, wants to be a leader. But no one wants apparently to be a follower. Which may be the problem.
The truth is that leadership, however inspired or effective, is but a part of the whole. The other half of the equation, the other side of the coin, the yin for the yang, is good followership. What in the world is that? Paul Beedle, a Unitarian minister, describes “followership” as:
The discipline of supporting leaders and helping them to lead well. It is not submission, but the wise and good care of leaders, done out of a sense of gratitude for their willingness to take on the responsibilities of leadership, and a sense of hope and faith in their abilities and potential.
Beedle signals his awareness of a problem, at least in some quarters, with the whole notion of being a follower: that it means “submission.” It does not. Good followers are active, thinking, engaged, responsive. They think for themselves. And they value the role leaders play in helping organizations and institutions to be healthy and effective.
Beedle’s definition of “followership” signals something else, that being a good follower is a discipline. It is adult behavior. It entails impulse-control and capacity to manage expectations — qualities that seem in short supply these days. People are eloquent about their grievances, articulate about their needs, and insistent on their agendas. But discipline? Self-management? Restraint? Not our strong suit.
This is one reason that being a leader, at least one who’s responsible and knows it’s not all about himself or herself, is a tough job. We want leaders to deliver. Do we expect ourselves, as followers, to deliver too?
Based on my observation of organizations like schools, churches, civic groups and not-for-profits, here are a couple marks or qualities of good followers.
One, good followers do recognize that vital, healthy organizations need leadership. They value it. They understand that good leaders are key to keeping an organization vital and on-task. Without such leaders, organizations drift and decline often sets in. Leadership is valued.
Two, good followers work on managing their expectations. That doesn’t mean not having expectations. It’s not indifference or apathy. Have expectations for your leaders and organization, but reasonable ones. Manage your expectations and remember you’ve hired or elected a human being not the messiah.
Three, good followers not only think about their part of the enterprise, they also think at least some about the whole enterprise. That means that a teacher thinks not just about her classroom, but the whole school. It means the congregant thinks not just about the synagogue program he most loves, but about the whole synagogue and its mission.
Four, good followers are good at giving specific feedback. Feedback focuses on actions. It tells leaders, in specific ways, what you appreciate and find helpful about their way of leading. Good feedback also points out, again in specific terms, actions that haven’t been, at least in your view, as helpful or effective. But here the focus is on the action not the person. It’s not a personal attack, but a comment on actions or behaviors.
Are you a leader or a follower? Truth is, most of us are both. It depends on the time and place. In some situations, you are a leader or called to exercise leadership. In another, you are more in the role of a follower. That, too, is an important job. Sometimes, in my experience, the best followers are those who have been leaders and know just how tough it can be.
As we stress and value leadership, and properly so, it might be a good idea to not stop there, but to ask “What about good followership?” More than that, we might work on practicing it.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Sep 29, 9:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Well said, Tony. The partnership of leader-follower that you describe takes a lot of maturity. As a follower, who is also at times a leader, there is the delicate dance of allowing someone else to lead which involves knowing and accepting the skills each of you have - and, more important, a commitment to move in the same direction! Trust is essential - both ways! Thanks for a good read and a needed call for followers!
Posted Thu, Sep 29, 12:19 p.m. Inappropriate
The picture included in this article leads the reader to assume that unstated, but implicit in the article is the conjecture that President Obama would be a more effective leader if he had more effective followers. This was the same excuse made for Jimmy Carter circa 1979. A person can have all the intelligence and education in the world, but if he is not cut out for leadership, he will not be a leader. And "leading from behind" is an oxymoron.
Posted Thu, Sep 29, 3:06 p.m. Inappropriate
Having been involved in a number of groups, political campaigns, etc., I've found that being a good follower and a good leader are often not all that different from each other. When I started becoming active in politics, I thought the best way to be involved was to hang out at meetings and wait to be assigned a task. What I've found since then is that, whatever the official leadership structure of the group may be, the effective members are those who take the initiative and propose ideas that they themselves will carry out. They also have a good sense of what they want to accomplish before walking in the door.
The right organizations tend to attract the right followers. I've worked in large organizations that tried to fool me with their upside-down org charts but in fact leave no room for initiative. They accomplish very little. I've been in organizations whose missions are defined so vaguely that nothing can be accomplished in the group that could not more easily be done individually. And I've been in organizations where "followers" are encouraged to state their opinions and feelings, no matter how obnoxious, long-winded, and irrelevant to the group they may be. But while I find it easy to describe which groups dissuade good followers, it is much harder to describe how to foster a good environment in which positive things get done, even though I've been there as well.
Presidential leadership, evoked by the Obama photo posted in the article, is probably not the best model to use. Surely the President is the leader of the federal bureaucracy, commander in chief of the military, one of the most influential figures in the legislative process, and leader of his political party, but not the leader of the nation in any meaningful sense. The contemporary model of the relationship between the public and elected officials is that the public has no role in the governing process other than to register approval or disapproval by voting, in the way that I might take my business to Target when I become dissatisfied with Wal-Mart. Curiously, while the public is generally expected to be ignorant of any but the most superficial details of policy, public officials and particularly the President are charged with such fuzzy things as "confidence" and "tone". I consider myself a supporter of the President, but not a follower in the way that I am a follower in the various groups in which I work.
Posted Thu, Sep 29, 9:06 p.m. Inappropriate
When the topic of leadership and followers comes up, I'm reminded (why I don't know), of what Thomas Sowell said. "People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything."
Posted Fri, Sep 30, 4:43 p.m. Inappropriate
So now we can blame the wars in 5 countries, the failed economy, the military trials at Gitmo, the lack of prosecution of the fraud in the banking industry on the followers of the president instead of noting that president appointed these lame associates and hasn't done squat to fix anything?
Thanks, but no thanks. Obama had a chance to be FDR, and instead became Buchanan. History will note he was a caretaker president before a crisis and that politicians failed to right the ship while there was time.
Posted Sat, Oct 1, 2:48 p.m. Inappropriate
Obama came into a crisis in progress. Whether he did everything possible to deal with that crisis is debatable; the fact that it was not created by him is not.
Posted Sun, Oct 2, 10:07 a.m. Inappropriate
Neither is it debatable that he took a bad situation and made it worse.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.