Leadership and Change

I would rephrase followership to staff development because like it or not being a follower is not a positive role in our culture. In fact it is highly discouraged within our YMCA youth work models.

Instead I would argue that when everyone is in touch with their own personal leadership philosophy, then they will be good followers and leaders. In essence what would be ideal is a work environment that creates 360 degree leaders. Leaders that know how to guide their supervisors, while also guiding their peers and supervisees.

Maybe the change that this author is trying to refer to is moving from a independent leadership style to a interdependent leadership style, like our reading focused on last week.

That's my initial response right now.

Barbara -- If others are allowed to borrow the advance copy of the new text, please put me in the queue. I am eagerly grabbing anything I can find on the subject of followership as I formulate a new mental model that is more balanced than leadership alone. It is interesting that you offer this open door today, because over the weekend I moved my thoughts and questions about leader-follower out of precognition and onto a pair of big, colorful doodles that are taped on the dining room wall. I started placing citations on the diagram to test out how the research fits with what I drew, or doesn't. I am motivated to seek a conversation with you some time in the near future, doodles in hand.

My head is packed with anecdotes to rifle through each week when readings awaken a new angle on this question of follower-leader. Reading Bryan's comment, I find myself wanting to explore followership within a definable context that allows for "meaning making" from the literature, life experience, public values, etc. There are different schools of thought about what humans need developmentally at various stages across the lifespan; playing various roles within organizations; at critical points of transition between and among personal, organizational, and societal realities. It is that latter thought that hangs on my dining room wall in a diagram inspired by my daughter's Honor's Chemistry assignment.

What does bind us, we autonomous, leader-minded individuals, to follow beliefs within ourselves, or other human beings in the context of association, or philosophies out there among the polis of the common good? What are we following anyway

What happens to representative governance when a critical percentage of citizens choose not to follow consensus governance decisions? I have case studies I would like to explore, starting with the unfinished paper from TPP last spring. The team I served on discovered widespread, persistent, worsening non-compliance with the "privilege" of the state compulsory education law. It cut across all the divisions. Dramatic numbers of students are eligible for educational neglect reporting (under age 12) or truancy (12 and over) as early as October of each academic year. We've all seen that problem framed many ways, but never as a failure of followership that I can recall. The reported failure of student achievement is placed upon the structure and human resources of the school organization today. Too many public leaders are eager to dismantle and deregulate the public school infrastructure than engage disenfranchised people who are following something other than the founders' vision of an educated citizenry capable of participating and serving, each to their own interests and abilities. Is that a lack of leadership by the very few who lead public schools, or the many who don't show up?

After many years working, volunteering, serving at leadership levels trying to "fix" this public problem from the leadership side of the street, I'm crossing to the follower side to spend the rest of my MPA time looking at public issues from a new perspective. There appear to be some benefits to this approach:

1. From what I can tell, the follower side of the street is crowded with a widely diverse gathering of people. Countless people have told me they do not want to bear the hard work or risk or title of leadership, and others just weren't ready yet. My sister, the 21-year teacher, frequently ends a story with "That's another reason principals make more money than I do."

2. I don't know many officially-designated leaders who actually hang out with followers for any length of time. Daniel Pink (2006) describes the new senses of our conceptual age: empathy; stories; meaning; symphony; design; and play. Yet there are few of those attributes present in persistent divisions between management and labor, employee and employer, elected and classified, board and administration, permanent and seasonal, or other labels people use to differentiate themselves from one another.

3. Is there research that helps explain, with far less confusion, when, why, and how people with certain responsibilities and authorities switch roles for at least awhile? I think of how Van de Ven described human behavior in reaction to shifting innovation performance criteria (p. 40). Or the "fluid participation of innovation personnel," on pp. 44-47. Of particular note is this line: "Others, often of lower hierarchical status, require and demand more closure and safeguards." The details aren't half as important as the simple truth that we are not all leaders with equal stature. The people he is describing, I believe, have characteristics and needs that are under-served by scholars and practitioners.

I close with one final quote from Van de Ven on p. 57. He is citing the 1989 Bryson and Roering MIRP study that showed that the adoption of innovation within six local governmental agencies was "prone to disintegration." Reason #3 caught my eye: "Participants got bogged down with information, conflicting priorities, and divergent issues that fall outside their decision jurisdictions or domains."

It struck me that nobody was leading and nobody was following in those disintegrating situations. Chaos? Stirrings?

However, the three concrete recommendations for managing innovation that appear on the next page from Bryson and Roering absolutely assign leadership and followership responsibilities. If we presume that the same people remain employed during the turn of that page, then what are best practices, rooted in research, that lead personal and organizational change? As John says, "People need to change their own minds."

If Bryan is right, that it's not cool to be a follower, then what are the incentives to be a follower? I went digging for something that supports his comment, and found a nugget, still in Van de Ven: "Whereas the innovation may be the exclusive labor of love for the innovation team, it is but one of a set of interacting, often competing, business considerations for top managers and investors (p. 58-59).

So I suggest a slight Noddings modification to Bryan's observation. Perhaps it is the lack of care demonstrated by leaders to labors of love by people in their care that has replaced followership with a mindset, or feelings, better described some other way.

Count me "in" as a follower on this study of what may be a new discipline. Am I right that the root of that word is disciple, or follower? Wendy Wustenberg

I encourage Wendy to bring her diagram to class and can loan the book on sign up basis.

In my review mentioned in the original posting in this string, I suggest that one of the key differences in leadership and followership education might be to give aspiring leaders more help in exercising their greater power responsibly and followers more help in building their power responsibly. Thsi may relate to some of the questions raised by Wendy.

This is interesting. Is followership about being a good follower or empowering people to take leadership roles in the organization? I am thinking the later is what is meant.

This is the holistic paradigm that is being integrated into health care. Here it is called partnership. Patients are becoming partners in the decision making process for their care. The patriarchal paradigm is starting to shift.

Here in lies the dilemma. We have not been trained to make those decisions. We are used to our parents, and superiors making the choices for us. The mind set of many is to be protected by someone or thing. Then also, if things go wrong they are not to blame.

In the holistic dental office I work in, we give patients a choice in the decision making process. So for example, if the diagnosis is an abscessed tooth, the patient is given the pros and cons. They are given what the American Dental Association says about putting in a root canal and then they are given the other side of the holistic philosophy about the failure of root canals and the focal infection theory. In addition, they are given the choice to do nothing or have the tooth pulled. Some patients have definite ideas but many still say to the Dentist, "What would you do?" The dentist I work for will not make that choice for the patient and some get angry because of his response. For most of the 150 year history of the ADA, patients have taken the dentists word for what they think. People are not used to taking responsibility for these decisions. I believe that also carries over to other relationships like work.

I think we would need to empower the staff, follower, employee or partner to be willing to take risks. So how do you do that? The speaker from the women's shelter talked about creating an environment for people (staff) to develop within. This must be a place where people are not afraid to make mistakes. If this is done, an empowered staff will start to direct how an organization is run and develops. I think this would be great. I question, however, if the traditional patriarch thinking is ready for this.

What do you think?

This is interesting. Is followership about being a good follower or empowering people to take leadership roles in the organization? I am thinking the later is what is meant.

This is the holistic paradigm that is being integrated into health care. Here it is called partnership. Patients are becoming partners in the decision making process for their care. The patriarchal paradigm is starting to shift.

Here in lies the dilemma. We have not been trained to make those decisions. We are used to our parents, and superiors making the choices for us. The mind set of many is to be protected by someone or thing. Then also, if things go wrong they are not to blame.

In the holistic dental office I work in, we give patients a choice in the decision making process. So for example, if the diagnosis is an abscessed tooth, the patient is given the pros and cons. They are given what the American Dental Association says about putting in a root canal and then they are given the other side of the holistic philosophy about the failure of root canals and the focal infection theory. In addition, they are given the choice to do nothing or have the tooth pulled. Some patients have definite ideas but many still say to the dentist, "What would you do?" The dentist I work for will not make that choice for the patient and some get angry because of his response. For most of the 150 year history of the ADA, patients have taken the dentists word for what they think. People are not used to taking responsibility for these decisions. I believe that also carries over to other relationships like work.

I think we would need to empower the staff, follower, employee or partner to be willing to take risks. So how do you do that? The speaker from the women's shelter talked about creating an environment for people (staff) to develop within. This must be a place where people are not afraid to make mistakes. If this is done, an empowered staff will start to direct how an organization is run and develops. I think this would be great. I question, however, if the traditional patriarch thinking is ready for this.

What do you think?

No matter what title it is given [leadership/followership], the course would definitely benefit from expansion of how to make an impact from any point within an organization or societal group.

I agree with the idea of exploring new titles (citizenship?) because leader and follower and staff have connotations of who and what has a level of control over each element.

Reawakening the entire idea of citizenry could drive a shift in politics [or so I hope]...

I found Barbara's observation very thought-provoking: one of the key differences in leadership and followership education might be to give aspiring leaders more help in exercising their greater power responsibly and followers more help in building their power responsibly. I like the idea of a class that discusses the dynamics of leadership and change as well as followership and change, for change can happen from either angle.

Followers need to comprehend and embrace a different set of rules than leaders for successful results to follow. If a follower holds aspirations towards leadership (or simply would like to see a change happen), it would be advisable for that person to pursue appropriate methods and guidelines.

We've discussed promoting change from the followership perspective: Persuade those above you by showing them how they can benefit by the suggested change. There are most certainly many other positive ways to gain success from the bottom up (no pun intended or even suggested).

I vote positively for the new course name (or even some variation of the "followership" label) and direction.

I, too, found the concept of followership an interesting one. As I frequently do, I chose to consider this in light of my own experience.

From the time I was three I've chosen paths that allowed me to not follow. (There's a story behind it, but I'll spare you all that.) That didn't necessarily mean I wanted to lead, but that I have to work at being a good follower. Does that mean I'm not a "team player"? Does being a follower imply mimicry of the leader in order to, at some point, become a leader? I think not. Were that the case we would lose the give and take inherent in the processes we've been studying. Part of being a leader is identifying your followers and then providing them with the resources, environment and individual respect that allows them, and your organization, to flourish. In my mind the path of finding your own voice and determining your values and subsequently guiding others in your organization to repeat this process both personally and then collectively serves to flush out those who will choose to lead. As Wendy points out, not everyone wants to lead. Some actively retreat from the prospect. They have a niche as followers and the process helps them self-identify as such.

As an additional consideration, I can think of no leaders who are not at the same time followers. Virtually everyone in a leadership position has to answer to someone else whether it be their voting constituency or a board of directors. This would seem, then, to introduce a duality, to set up an inner conflict between the leader/follower personas. Does the struggle serve as a catalyst which drives individual change? In the progression toward leadership, this would seem to me to be the point at which one recognizes that the collective vision no longer works. Conversely, this could also represent the point at which one clearly recognizes, and becomes reconciled to the idea of being a follower.

Sarah Waldemar

Leadership, on the other hand, can also hold connotations that push individuals away. As Wendy’s sister states, “That’s another reason that principles make more money than I do.” Does leadership carry a connotation of work that is overwhelming? K and P (Chap. 8) make several great points: “…if you think of problems too broadly or too expansively they appear overwhelming. They suffocate people’s capacity to even conceive of what might be done, let alone begin doing something immediately.” (192) “People won’t remain with a cause that distresses them.” (209) If Wendy’s sister felt she could affect change (in a particular situation) with an incremental effort, would her perception of leadership change? Would she view this as leadership?

As Betty Jo points out, while ‘partnerships’ may sound like the solution to the leader/follower drawbacks, the problem still remains that some individuals may not feel they have the expertise to make decisions for themselves. Lets say a dental patient asks the dental professional, “What would you do?” The dentist suggests that the patient makes his own ‘informed’ decision. So the dental patient chooses to not to have an abscessed tooth pulled. The patient then takes a flight to China and the cabin pressure causes horrifying complications for this abscessed tooth. Now the patient is stuck in a small village in China for two weeks without a resource. Was the patient supposed to have the expertise to consider cabin pressure when making a decision?

Yes, Barbara makes a great point: “…one of the key differences in leadership and followership education might be to give aspiring leaders more help in exercising their greater power responsibly and followers more help in building their power responsibly.

Liz Kuivinen

Oops. The paragraph below was intended to be the first paragraph for my previous (above) posting.

Fascinating topic. Insightful comments. Yes, Bryan brings up a great point that followership , in some circles, has a negative connotation. One summary might be: leadership is proactive and followership is reactive. ‘Reactive’ may sound or feel conforming (or even ‘weak’ to some), an idea that the individual is just ‘following’ guidelines with no personal input. To what degree does followership consider an individual’s motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic)? Is a follower compliant or an active change agent? The spectrum is quite large and, I believe, should be given more attention. I vote the topic be addressed in future classes.

It is absolutely imperative to understand that everyone plays different roles and they fall across a broad spectrum of leading and following. I think both terms have negative connotations to some people (either the proud person who refuses to be a follower or the shy/lazy/etc person who is completely uncomfortable with the idea of leading).

I also think that most of our dialogue still centers around a cognitive schema that places leaders "at the top" so to speak. Whether it is nuanced in our words or blatantly stated, we have a hard time breaking the mental coding we have for the term "leader." We keep saying leadership is for everyone, but we aren't re-programmed yet to "see" it.

I think leading and following go hand in hand and it should definitely be addressed in future classes.