What differentiates a leader from a follower? Now this seems like a pretty easy question to answer. A leader is the person others look up to, the person in charge, the one giving the orders. A follower is the one who receives the order and does the task, the one who looks for guidance. So objectively speaking, the qualities of a leader and a follower would be different through and through. A follower does not have the ability to lead, and a leader would never follow. However, Northouse defines leadership as a process by which both the leader and the followers are affected and affect each other (Northouse, 2015 pg 3). This would mean that leaders and followers are not mutually exclusive, they must “co-mingle” in both qualities and goals.
So with that being said, what now differentiates a leader from a follower? Well according to Northouse, it is influence that primarily differentiates the positions. Northouse describes leadership as being a process, as involving influence, as occuring in groups, and as having common goals (Northouse, 2015 pg 3). However, three of those four requirements do not focus on an individual difference between leaders and followers. The only one that focuses on a distinctive difference is influence (or a lack thereof). So it is not incorrect to assume that the defining quality between a leader and a follower is their amount of influence (or lack thereof). This idea implies that with enough influence a follower could become a leader, and vice-versa if a leader was to lose influence he could be relegated to being a follower.
Why is that important? Well Northouse describes the leader-follower relationship as being “two sides of the same coin” (Rost, 1991) (Northouse 2015 pg 4). Workers and leaders must share a common goal, meaning “workers who share a leader’s goals and values and who feel rewarded for performing a job well might be more likely to work extra hours on a project” (Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership, 2020, pg 7). This statement implies that the workers are the ones who adopt the leader’s goals. While that is true, I prefer to think of it as the leader adopting the mindset of his workers. An effective leader is one who understands the needs and wants of his followers and all leaders have an ethical responsibility to understand those things (Northouse 2015 pg 4). This means that in order to truly be an effective leader, he/she must think like a follower and understand what they hope to achieve. This translates across all forms of leadership, from corporate settings in the 21st century to dictatorships ranging back to the time of kings.
Leaders from all walks of life have defined their places in history. From the kings of yore to the political systems in place today there have been numerous differences in the way leaders choose to lead. However, across the board one thing remains the same, good effective leaders go down in history as having helped their followers while bad ineffective leaders go down in history as having impeded them. The most effective leaders in our history are not those who used their followers to achieve their goals, but rather enabled their followers by understanding their most basic wants and needs.
References:
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2020). PSYCH 485 Lesson 1: Introduction to Leadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/sp20/22011–17109/toc.html.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: theory and practice. Seventh edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
klh333 says
I couldn’t agree with you more, Ajay! Effective leaders understand the imperative nature of understanding their leaders. This is true for almost every kind of leadership, every approach to leadership, every situation, and enhances any specific leadership trait. The ability to lead and influence any group of people lies primarily in basic understandings about not only the end goal, but the group of people the leader is tasked with working with in their efforts to accomplish that goal.
One of the things that swayed my desire to pursue a degree in I/O psychology is the concept of the leader/follower relationship. I found that as I worked my way up the leadership ladder, that not every leader has (or keeps) their followers needs in mind. It seems for some, when they get to a position of leadership, they all of a sudden forget they were once (and possibly still are to a degree) a follower. I always made conscious efforts to actually get to know my followers carefully and pick up on what it is that truly motivates them. Being able to tap into that motivation is key in figuring out how to align the needs of the followers with the needs of the organization and then using those to develop action plans to accomplish organizational goals.
In specific leadership approaches such as the transformational and the servant approach, there is a level of combined efforts in that the leaders work with their followers not only to influence but also to accomplish tasks and goals. Setting the example for the followers to echo in terms of desired attitudes and behaviors. This is beneficial for several reasons but one of the most important is that it can show the followers that their leaders are human just like them with similar motivational needs.
In a situation where a leader is focused on genuinely understanding their followers, the followers actually have quite a bit of influence on the leader. If a leader is concerned at all with melding the followers needs with the organizations needs, they need to keep their followers needs in mind when making certain organizational decisions. They are tasked with ensuring their followers needs and concerns are heard and met at the organizational level. So in that regard, it could be argued that there is somewhat of a substantial follower influence on the leader as well.
Great post!