It is evident that we have learned thus far from the lesson commentary along with the Northouse’s definition of leadership that followers are just as important in the leader-follower relationship. As Hamel states in the lesson commentary, “…leadership is understood as something created through the social interactions and dynamics between leaders and followers (Hamel, 2021).” I wanted to discuss this relationship in how it relates to people of power in government, from those that are representative of various districts, to those in power running our country as a whole.
The candidates we elect have a relationship with us, their followers. For example, for a person representing their district in congress, those elected must work with the community to understand their needs. This is important for the leader, or the representative in this case, because without the communication with their communities, they cannot truly lead. They are not able to lead without first listening to pressing issues such as housing, healthcare, or community funds.
Leaders should also be those whom we can hold accountable, not just to be elected and mindlessly praised. This ties in with the relational-based perspective of followership described in the commentary. It is defined as “a constructionist approach, where leadership is created as a result of the interactions between the follower and the leader (Hamel, 2021).” This concept emphasizes that leadership can only be attained with the cooperation of followers, and vice versa, which is demonstrated with the leaders a community elects into office and its constituents.
In this relationship between an elected official and members of their district, it is just as important for the follower to choose the best candidate that reflects their needs, concerns and ideas for improving their representative area. Most elected officials also host town halls, which are also an important factor in the leader-follower relationship. When events like these occur that are meant for productive discussion, it is again important to elect a leader with attributes that represent a charismatic leader, as the trait approach suggests. In a study included in the Northouse textbook, it states that it “found that charismatic leaders consistently possess traits of self-monitoring, engagement in impression management, motivation to attain social powers and motivation to attain self-actualization (Jung & Sosik, 2006).” This demonstrates all the qualities that any political member should have prior to serving the members of their communities.
Conclusively, we can hold our congress members, mayors, and especially our presidents, accountable and view how we can use these traits and approaches to choose people that best reflect our needs as a whole.
References
Hamel, R. (2021). Lesson 3: Followership.
Northouse, P.G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Well thought out and presented. One of the things this brings to mind is the evolution of power – especially when politics are considered.
Initially, we had those with strength and money use both to control the masses. Then the development of leaders that began to work with the people and then today, where once we seemed as followers, but have become the actual strength of any political entity. This may be a bit simplistic, but essentially we can elect someone and if they are not moving according to our wishes, we can destroy them and remove them from office.
Well, not literally destroy them, but it has become somewhat of a “cancel culture” identity that when we no longer find someone in power (supposedly in power) to be to our liking, to immediately call for their removal from whatever position they might have held.
Please know that this is not a political statement — it seems to apply to just about anyone, anywhere — and apparently, any time (going back decades) that have been caught on record saying or doing something.
This whole new dynamic gives me pause for thought on who is actually the follower and who is the leader!