Leader or Follower: Who is Really in Control of this Relationship?

Reflecting on Northouse’s “Followership” chapter, I feel that I have suddenly been slapped in the face with a revelation: the power and control we thought to be managed by a leader has actually been governed by the follower all along. As I try to make sense of this new realization, I am quickly reminded of Sally Field’s iconic Mrs. Doubtfire dinner scene where she responds to a surprising discovery with the following: “the whole time? The whole time, you were – THE WHOLE TIME?!” (Columbus, 1993). Northouse (2019) noted that we are groomed to believe that leadership requires specific skills and qualities either innately within us or capable of being developed during our childhoods. This type of upbringing rings true, especially in my personal life. I cannot remember a moment from my upbringing where the spotlight was removed away from the characteristics of a leader and placed on the typology of the individuals allowing the leader to guide, direct, and influence them.

Could it be true that followers have always possessed the power to regulate the role a leader plays in their lives? Based on the trait approach, one may surmise that the skills and qualities of a leader not only affect but dictate how followers will respond to a leader’s directive. This concept seems to imply that a leader will ultimately determine and establish the types of relationships, boundaries, and behaviors complied with by their followers (Northouse, 2019). However, Northouse pointed out that even if a leader measures up to their role, checking off every leadership quality considered most prominent based on the trait approach, these leadership qualities’ values diminish if weak interactions exist with their followers. As a result, this has now created a shift in the role of leadership.

A leader’s role is not primarily dependent on the personalities, characteristics, or qualities of the individual occupying the leader role; it is contingent on whether the followers permit them even to lead. This approach of “reversing the lens” has now empowered followers to effect change in their leadership (Northouse, 2019). The shaping of a leader not only rests on those personality traits they were born with but on the traits and qualities followers expect them to develop and exhibit. Surprisingly, it seems there is now a swapping of roles; leaders find themselves responding to their followers by adapting to their followers’ expectations. Furthermore, this role exchange indicates that the power of influence is shared between the leader and the follower.

There is no question that leadership requires influence, which is the ability to persuade others to achieve a unified and desired outcome (Northouse, 2019). Although influence is ordinarily linked to a leader’s ability to persuade followers, extending that influential power to followers produces what Northouse referred to as “the leadership co-created process.” This process creates an environment where negotiations occur between the leader and the follower. The follower now has a voice at the table that forces both the leader and follower to recognize and accept their positions, which allows the follower to reject an individual’s position as a leader (Northouse, 2019). Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as followers tend to conform to various roles exuding behaviors that suppress the power of influence they potentially could have on their leaders.

Passive or ineffective followers can cause leadership to go unchecked and create a path for leaders to become toxic and pernicious. Without a proper challenge to their authority, leaders with bad intentions can become powerful, leading to coercion or intimidation tactics by leaders to exert their control. According to Northouse (2019), coercive leaders like Adolph Hitler, the Taliban, Jim Jones, and Rodrigo Duterte used threats and punishment to force followers to participate in harmful activities. The key to these types of leaders is how the power they exerted over their followers was tolerated. Northouse (2019) observed the different roles a follower can take on that might not feel the need to protest a leader’s decisions including, passive, conformist, resource, and bystander. These types of followers are usually withdrawn, apathetic, indifferent yes men, and ineffectual in maintaining a balanced relationship with their leaders. In order for a leader to be productive, they need the participation and engagement of their followers to guide them.

Effective leaders only exist when effective followers are present; therefore, it is imperative that followers uphold the types of roles that challenge their leaders (Northouse, 2019). As leaders have expectations of their followers, so should followers of their leaders. That means that followers need to exercise voicing their opinions and confronting any unethical practices performed by their leaders (Northouse, 2019). Leaders must be held accountable for their actions, and followers must understand that their active engagement with leaders will help govern and ensure this is maintained. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the reality is that followers have more influential power than they may think to urge leaders to live up to their own leadership roles. Therefore, control is no longer managed solely by leaders but is now a shared responsibility with followers.

Considering the contributions researchers have made to the study of the type of leader-follower relationship shared in the preceding paragraphs, this knowledge resonates with me on a personal level. As mentioned before, my upbringing was tailored around the office of leadership. The role of being an effective follower was never a priority. It was always about honing the skills and qualities, which aligned to Stogdill’s eight traits: (a) intelligence, (b) alertness, (c) insight, (d) responsibility, (e) initiative, (f) persistence, (g) self-confidence, and (h) sociability (Northouse, 2019). Additionally, I was taught to respect the office of leadership regardless of who held that role. This instruction meant that I was to do as I was told without question and be what leaders like to repeatedly refer to as a “team player.” This ingrained ideology is why I blindly followed managers without much dispute early in my career.

Unfortunately, there came a time in my career where this ideology shifted out of necessity. I found myself challenging a leader who was performing unethical practices with the company’s reporting. I was constantly questioning the type of retaliation I would face by exposing this act. It is in moments like these where morals are tested, and as Jean Lipman-Blumen claimed, there is a natural desire for security over the possibility of being outcasted (Northouse, 2019). Regardless, I knew that I had an obligation to do what was right, and I reported the issue, accepting any backlash coming my way. To my surprise, what I did was the start of an investigation that came with support from other followers. My willingness to come forward encouraged these followers to do the same. In the end, this leader was terminated. It seemed that I, as a follower, had more power than I initially thought.

As Northouse (2019) wrote, the type of relational-based interaction between leaders and followers described above still requires more research. However, it serves as an insight into how followers heavily influence the process of leadership. For too long, followers have mostly been dismissed and pushed off to the side. Now, leadership is no longer leader-centric but focused on the exchange that occurs with followers. It seems followers may perhaps retain more control of their relationships with their leaders than previously thought.

 

References:

Columbus, C. (1993). Mrs. Doubtfire. Twentieth Century Fox.

Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.