Leadership, we know. It is the ability of an individual to mobilize a collective around him to achieve goals or accomplish great things. At the same time a guide, influencer and inspiring personality, a good leader must not only share his vision of the future, but also give his employees confidence to better prepare them for the challenges of tomorrow.

 

So when in the theories of organizations, followership is now displayed placing the traditional "subordinates" at the heart of power games, can we speak of a revolution?

 

 

 

No leader without a follower!

Of course, leaders or, conversely, the lack of leaders participate in the success or the erosion of companies, but this observation tends to make invisible the people that these same leaders will have to mobilize. It is therefore time to change our perspective to take a closer look at the roles of " followers  ", who have been denigrated for too long, probably because the term seems less inspiring.

 

Followership , studied and theorized by Robert Kelley (1) in particular, is both the willingness of one or more individuals to actively follow a leader and the reciprocal social process of leadership. By mirror effect, if a leader is content to give the minimum, he will receive little from his teams. If, on the other hand, he is actively and sincerely involved with them, they will do so in return.

 

 

Beyond his individual qualities or skills, a leader without a group to leader is deprived of his strength. Without his armies, Napoleon was just a man of grandiose ambitions! Organizations are as much dependent on their leaders as on those who follow them.

 

But how does the follower approach the relationship of authority? What happens if he refuses to follow his leader?

 

 

 

All followers, all leaders

One imagines the discreet followers, rather passive, devoid of the ability to project themselves, obeying orders and taking little initiative, in short more or less conscientious executors. However, there is no leader without a follower and a majority of us constantly oscillate between these two facets depending on the situation and the way in which the collective is formed.

 

Leadership implies showing empathy towards your teams, knowing how to identify, understand and emulate their knowledge, know-how and interpersonal skills to push them to give the best of themselves in the service of the objective pursued.

 

 

Conversely, poor leadership can lead followers to a form of resistance action, whereby they organize collectively to form a counter-power by threatening the established order. And somehow, by detecting these bad leaders, they are doing the whole organization a great service.

It is therefore interesting to analyze how these followers function individually and collectively and what relationships they have with leaders.

 

 

In 1987, a major commercial bank on the American East Coast saw its profitability threatened, while competition intensified. Forced to reorganize its activities and reduce its workforce, it assigns its best managers to safeguard customers in the field. Due to a lack of available senior executives, a department head urgently decides to delegate responsibility for the reorganization to his staff.

 

Despite serious doubts, he thus set up a leaderless unit, each with responsibilities to the others, and to the bank as a whole. In self-management, they must write their own job descriptions, design a training program, determine performance evaluation criteria, plan operational needs, etc.

 

 

Robert Kelley then studies these traditional " followers ", and the behaviours that seem to determine whether their following is effective or ineffective. He deduces two behavioral dimensions to be analyzed:

 

• To what extent do followers exercise independent critical thinking?

• To what extent are followers passive or active ?

 

 

This results in five models of followers:

 

• The " passive follower" is not committed to his tasks, waits for directives and applies the leader's decisions without thinking about them.

Kelley speaks of a " sheep " follower.

• The " conformist follower", very active and committed to his tasks, but unable to question the leader's decisions. Kelley calls him the "yes man!" follower.

• The " alienated follower" is very little committed to his tasks, he easily questions the leader's decisions, without ever proposing a solution. He is a follower considered " toxic".

• The " pragmatic follower" follows the injunctions but nothing more. He can think about decisions without ever really daring to oppose the leader's choices.

• Finally, the " effective follower" reflects on orders and engages in the tasks assigned to him. He is the ideal follower, the one who will be able to strengthen the organization and the leadership of the leader!

 

 

 

Followers, new strong links?

Robert Kelley identifies the four key qualities of effective followers:

 

• Autonomy: they feel invested when they are involved in the organization's project. They develop their skills and focus their efforts for maximum impact.

• Courage: Willing to admit mistakes and share successes, they are regarded by their peers and trustworthy.

• Loyalty : they do not hesitate to show solidarity with their employees, they know that their obligation is to the company and not to a manager, and they value collective success over personal recognition.

• Accountability : " Effective followers " are diligent, motivated, committed, and attentive to detail.

 

Followers therefore have a role that borrows many similarities from leadership, and their posture and commitment seem as essential as those of the leader.

 

 

 

Followership and leadership: the virtuous circle of performance

Robert Kelley notes that leaders are only responsible for about 20% of the work that is done in an organization. Because we often tend to put strategy at the heart of any success, but this is forgetting that operational implementation is just as essential. According to the organizational psychology consultant, nothing happens without the action of " propellers " who take over projects to carry them out and achieve the set objectives.

 

 

Leadership and followership are therefore two intrinsically linked concepts that complement each other. An individual must assume his or her leadership role if he or she wants to distinguish himself or herself from the other members of the group. At the same time, he must be able to follow and accompany other leaders. It is also a great lever for personal development, since the higher expectations followers have, the more they push the leader to surpass himself, improving his skills and postures, as well as the overall performance of the organization.

 

 

 

Followership, the embodiment of better leadership, at the service of all

Far from disembodying it, followership is on the contrary the condition for an even more engaging leadership because it is questioned, stimulated and accompanied. It is a new requirement for leaders, who must learn to orchestrate rather than direct, to be attentive to the needs of their teams rather than to order actions, i.e. to become experts in the art of listening (2).

He reminds us that without the collective and the cooperation within this collective, overall performance will be lower.

 

 

 

Followership therefore advances leadership for the collective good. We thus see the emergence of " servant leadership ", a model theorized by Robert K. Greenleaf (3) that encourages a person in authority to approach a mission with the primary concern of the desire to serve his followers.

 

This means that leaders learn about the needs of the followers they are then willing to satisfy, nurture, defend, and empower them to become servant leaders themselves. Robert Greenleaf, recommends the adoption of the Kantian categorical imperative, which states that a leader must do what is right, no matter the cost.

 

Even when it is not in the financial interest of the organization to do this or that, leaders should consider social responsibility as one of their major goals. The leader inspires the followers, which implies that these same followers gradually become servant leaders, bringing a greater number of moral agents into society.

 

 

 

True values-based  leadership always acts on behalf of its followers. James O'Toole (4), a specialist in the subject, likes to cite several names that, by their consistency, would be the closest to values-based leadership: Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel, Mahatama Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln, Mother Teresa, Eleanor Roosevelt and Jean Monet.

Their actions have had as their main goal the improvement of the lives of their " followers ", so that they realize their real needs. This altruistic aim does not deprive the leader of his ambitions, on the contrary: he is aware that his success depends on the followers, and that it is only on the condition that they offer them the opportunity to achieve their goals, to reach their full potential that they will be able to develop all the qualities of effective followers.

 

 

 

The younger generations, who are even more suspicious and demanding of the business world, embody this new balance of power, demanding that leaders listen to more, consult with each other and empathize and be benevolent. The demand for more sustainable development and the growing aspiration for " responsible management" also promotes followership, which is particularly relevant for reconciling managerial practices that serve the fulfillment of individuals, on the one hand, and the organization's superior and sustainable performance on the other.

 

 

 

Sources

(1) 1992: Robert Kelley, " The Power of Followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves ", New York, Doubleday

 

(2) 2003: Tom Atchison, " Followership: A Practical Guide to Aligning Leaders and Followers ," Health Administration Press, ISBN 1567932169

 

(3) 2003: Robert K. Greenleaf, "The servant-leader within: a transformative path", Larry C. Spears Editions

 

(4) 1996: James O Toole: Leading Change: The Argument For Values-Based