BY RICHARD B. GASAWAY
Much has been written on the definition, attributes, and qualities of good and bad leadership. The list of great leaders throughout history is long and impressive. Not one person on the list of the best leaders of all time would be inscribed without followers. Yet little attention has been given to the attributes of the best followers. The inattention to the qualities of followers who made these leaders great is like studying how man first walked on the moon without any discussion of or concern for any of the attributes of the vessels that transported him there.
Just as human beings must have air and water to survive, an organization must have leaders and followers to survive. Just as it is difficult to determine which is more important to human survival, air or water, it is also difficult to determine who are more important to organizational survival, leaders or followers. Good leadership makes it easy for followers to follow, and good “followership” makes it easy for leaders to lead. But, the leaders’ expectations of their followers and the followers’ expectations of their leaders do not always align.
THE LEADER DEFINED
According to Robbins, leadership is the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of goals.1 Although leadership and management are often used interchangeably, the terms denote significantly different behavioral traits. Kotter describes managers as people who cope with complexity, bringing order and consistency by drawing up plans, designing organizational structures, and monitoring the results against the plans.2 Leaders, in contrast, cope with change by creating and communicating a vision and inspiring followers to overcome obstacles. This is not to say that leadership is more important than management; both are very important for optimal effectiveness.
As Robbins points out: “In today’s dynamic world, we need leaders to challenge the status quo, to create visions of the future, and to inspire organizational members to want to achieve the visions. We also need managers to formulate detailed plans, create efficient organizational structures, and to oversee day-to-day operations.” (1)
Kirkpatrick and Locke identified the traits that tend to separate leaders from nonleaders, which include ambition and energy, the desire to lead, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job-relevant knowledge.3
THE FOLLOWER DEFINED
The traits of good followers are not as well defined in the literature. Most references to followers speak of their expectations of the leader and desired leader traits. Many well-respected authors on leadership fall short of addressing follower qualities. Even in a popular text used at the doctoral level of learning, Leadership: Theory and Practice by P.G. Northhouse, the index refers the reader to the heading of “subordinates” when looking for “followers.”4 Unfortunately, most commentary about leadership ignores the follower.5
However, the definition of a follower can be derived from that of a good leader. For example, playing off Robbins’ definition of a leader, a follower would be a person who can be influenced toward the achievement of goals. Similar to the previous discussion of leaders and managers, there are also followers and employees. Although the terms followers and employees are often used interchangeably, they denote significantly different behavioral traits. Taking from Kotter’s definition, employees would be described as people who cope with complexity, follow orders and plans, abide by organizational structures, and require monitoring of their results in accord with established plans. Followers embrace change, buy into the vision of the leader, and are inspired to overcome obstacles.
Following this logic, the list of leadership traits offered by Kirkpatrick and Locke could then be modified to serve as a list that separates followers from employees. This list would include ambition and energy, the desire to follow, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, intelligence, and job-relevant knowledge. Careful attention to this list denotes that only one word changed: “The desire to lead” changed to “the desire to follow.”
MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS
Given the similarity of definitions and the nearly identical traits, it seems a simple task to align leaders and followers, yet many organizations struggle. It boils down to a matter of perception. According to Kouzes and Posner, successful leadership depends far more on the follower’s perception of the leader’s abilities than on the leader’s own perceptions. In other words, leadership is in the eye of the follower. Although Kouzes and Posner do not say this explicitly, the converse could also be true. (5) Followership is in the eye of the leader. A logical progression might imply the use of the term “eye” to mean a “view.” To have a “view,” one must be able to “envision” (figuratively, not literally). To “envision,” one must have a perception of reality. To mutually understand the “reality” of the leader and follower, one must “communicate.” As a result of “communication,” one “relates.” As one “relates,” a “relationship” develops. How do leaders and followers develop a relationship? Simpson and Harris proposed five ways in which leader-follower relationships develop:
- Repeated exposure to a person increases liking for that person because familiar people are assumed to be safe and comforting.
- Frequent interaction because of physical proximity increases perceptions of similarity.
- Frequent interaction also permits people to explore and verify their similarities, which further enhances liking for one another.
- Regular interaction leads to the anticipation of future contact.
- People who are in close proximity to one another are readily accessible and available to interact and provide rewards to one another.6
The common theme here for leaders and followers is frequent interaction resulting in a shared understanding and a mutual respect to achieve established goals. Much like any relationship, the leader-follower/follower-leader relationship requires mutual commitment and effort, and the input and ideas of both parties needs to be valued.
Endnotes
1. Robbins, S. P., Organizational Behavior (10th ed.), (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003).
2. Kotter, J. P., “What leaders really do,” Harvard Business Review, May-June 1990, 68(3), 103-111.
3. Kirkpatrick, S. A. and E. A. Locke, “Leadership: Do traits matter?” Academy of Management Executive, May 1991, 5(2), 48-60.
4. Northhouse, P. G., Leadership: Theory and Practice (third ed.), (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 2004).
5. Kouzes J. M. and B. Z. Posner, “The credibility factor: What followers expect from their leaders,” Management Review, 1990, 79(1), 29-33.
6. Simpson, J. A. and B. A. Harris, “Interpersonal attraction.” In A. L. Weber and J. H. Harvey (eds.), Perspectives on Close Relationships, (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), 45-66.
RICHARD B. GASAWAY is chief of the Roseville (MN) Fire Department and has been a chief officer for 17 years. He has a master’s degree in business administration and is a graduate of the National Fire Academy’s Executive Fire Officer Program. Gasaway lectures on management and leadership topics throughout the United States and Canada.
