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.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
A. Responsibility comes with risks and obligations. As a leader, you can\u2019t delegate control and responsibility effectively if you still \u201ccontrol the shots.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n
It is clear that there can be real costs. We might reframe leaders of social movements as actually being \u201cfollowers\u201d 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 \u2014 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.<\/p>\n
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?<\/p>\n
A. The key is that followers need to understand their role \u2014 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\u2019s evaluation of situations. Critical thinking is a key foundational construct in human psychology.<\/p>\n
Barbara Kellerman, in her recent book, Why We Follow Leaders, and Why We Don\u2019t, states that submission is the human condition (she draws on evolutionary theory, psychology, ethology). Submission and obedience are the follower \u201cdefault\u201d 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). <\/p>\n
The key is that followers need to understand their role \u2014 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\u2019s evaluation of situations. Critical thinking is a key foundational construct in human psychology.<\/p>\n
It is also important for followers (and leaders) to understand the dynamics of the situation \u2014 the context in which the collective exists. We can\u2019t truly understand \u201cleadership<\/a>\u201d without understanding the leader, the follower, and the situation\/context. Unfortunately, we don\u2019t 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. <\/p>\n Q. What does a psychologically mature follower look like in practice, not just behaviorally, but cognitively, emotionally, relationally, and ethically?<\/p>\n Cognitively<\/p>\n Exercises independent thinking Emotionally<\/p>\n
\nIs an active contributor to decision making<\/a> and to operations
\nUnderstands the dynamics of the collective \u2014 the leader-followers relationship
\nAccepts responsibility and learns from setbacks<\/p>\n