I was recently asked to provide some comments at the Global Followership Conference held this past summer at Indiana Wesleyan University. In addition to answering some questions, I provided some guidelines for what good followership looks like. Here is a summary.

Q. When a leader delegates responsibility to a follower, that comes with accepting the risks. In other words, there are benefits, but also real costs. What are your thoughts?

A. Responsibility comes with risks and obligations. As a leader, you can’t delegate control and responsibility effectively if you still “control the shots.” As a follower who is empowered, you have to accept the responsibility and realize the weight of that and accept the consequences and the outcomes.

It is clear that there can be real costs. We might reframe leaders of social movements as actually being “followers” who are resisting the status quo. Therefore, Nelson Mandela is not a leader initially. He is a follower who resists, and has to pay the price — 27 years of imprisonment. In the workplace, an empowered follower who takes on this responsibility must also consider the consequences, which can be positive or negative.

Q. One of the persistent tensions in followership is the difference between healthy support and unhealthy compliance. From a psychological perspective, what helps people discern when loyalty is virtuous and when loyalty has become complicity?

A. The key is that followers need to understand their role — including the power that they have to resist, if necessary. It means not just acquiescing, but keeping your eyes open; analyzing; being critical in one’s evaluation of situations. Critical thinking is a key foundational construct in human psychology.

Barbara Kellerman, in her recent book, Why We Follow Leaders, and Why We Don’t, states that submission is the human condition (she draws on evolutionary theory, psychology, ethology). Submission and obedience are the follower “default” system. The point is that it is very hard NOT to just follow. As followership expert, Ira Chaleff, emphasizes, it takes courage to resist leaders (and it also takes courage to follow and support leaders who themselves are meeting resistance).

The key is that followers need to understand their role — including the power that they have to resist, if necessary. It means not just acquiescing, but keeping your eyes open; analyzing; being critical in one’s evaluation of situations. Critical thinking is a key foundational construct in human psychology.

It is also important for followers (and leaders) to understand the dynamics of the situation — the context in which the collective exists. We can’t truly understand “leadership” without understanding the leader, the follower, and the situation/context. Unfortunately, we don’t often think of the situational variables in operation that affect both leadership and followership. That includes the cultural elements, the history of the collective [think the 250-year history of the U.S.], the norms and patterns of behavior and actions, the relationship dynamics, and many more variables.

Q. What does a psychologically mature follower look like in practice, not just behaviorally, but cognitively, emotionally, relationally, and ethically?

Cognitively

Exercises independent thinking
Is an active contributor to decision making and to operations
Understands the dynamics of the collective — the leader-followers relationship
Accepts responsibility and learns from setbacks

Emotionally

Shares responsibility for outcomes and especially failures
Is temperate; Maintains composure
Is emotionally intelligent (although I’m not a big fan of some of the “kitchen sink” models of EI)
Is courageous (partly emotional, partly cognitive)

Relationally

Takes responsibility for building high-quality relationships with leaders, peers, and subordinates
Is socially intelligent and socially skilled
Is an active support for the leader when the leader is engaged in mission-consistent courses of action

Leadership Essential Reads

Ethically

Has the moral courage to confront the leader who is engaged in unethical behavior
Is committed to the positive values of the collective
Analyzes the ethicality of courses of action
Is a person of good, virtuous character (this is also critical for leaders [and every member of the collective])
Is fair and just in dealing with self and others
Is ethically responsible