Leadership

PSYCH 485 blog

“Followership in an Intern Setting”

by

Northouse (2022) defines followership, as “As a process whereby an individual or individuals accept the influence of others to accomplish a common goal” (p.353).  Followership can have a negative or positive connotation. It is safe to say that since leadership perspectives have evolved so have the understanding of followership and the critical role it plays in today’s society.  We will focus on the positive aspects of followership and how it applied to an academic journey in my life. 

I developed my ability to be an effective follower during my internship at a mental health facility. The personality traits that I presented were my ability to be insightful and adaptable to my environment. The leader, who was my supervisor, was able to gain from these traits because during follow-up meetings we would discuss alternative therapeutic approaches that would assist clients with their obstacles. I would categorize my involvement with the company as being relational-based. The relational-based perspective emphasizes human relationships and interactions (Northouse, 2022). The CEO and I developed a communication style that allowed us to work as a team by collaborating on projects and job shadowing which led to moments where my feedback was needed and valued. 

Being a follower during my internship motivated me to continue pursuing my goal of becoming a leader in the psychology field. At the facility, I was persistent in accepting any networking opportunities that presented itself during my time there. I would ask for more assignments during downtime and would often participate in tedious tasks that other interns showed no interest in doing. This was my way of taking a proactive approach to support the supervisor and the organization. As it relates to the follower typology, I supported the leaders I interacted with. I would have identified myself as being an implementer. An implementer does the bulk of the work and enjoys doing it but does not challenge or question the leaders often (Northouse, 2022). I found it hard to criticize and object to certain operations because I was learning the field myself. Being a follower helped me be less judgmental because I did not want that same judgment but instead receive grace in any mistakes that I make (Dodd, 2020). 

My level of engagement as it pertains to Kellerman’s typology during my internship was “participant”. A participant either supports or opposes the leader, either way, they are engaged  (Northouse, 2022). My goal was to make an impact by bringing my own personal and professional expertise and applying that to my internship role. Meanwhile, I supported my supervisor in most of the choices that she made. I admired the way she treated clients, her dedication to the practice, and her ability to keep her composure during moments of heightened stress. 

To conclude, it’s important to note that followers are just as essential as leaders in the success of an organization. One’s success during their journey as a follower could ultimately determine the type of leader they could become. However, to be an effective follower you have to be a diligent worker, understand and learn the mission of the organization, be able to identify what bad leadership looks like, and most importantly show how you can be of value while still being a humble person. 

References

 

Dodd, B. (2020, September 7). 9 Benefits To Being A Good Follower. Brian Dodd on Leadership. https://briandoddonleadership.com/2020/09/07/9-benefits-to-being-a-good-follower/

 

Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership:Theory and Practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications

The Rise of Followers

by

Goldfish Led. (Adobe, 2022)

In a recent conversation about the components of leadership – leader, followers, and the situation – I was presented with a different word for follower, “led” (Northouse, 2021). So, I dove in to understand the perspective of “led” versus follower, and along the way, it became apparent that the word we use must fit into the context of today’s evolving leadership equation, rather than stand apart as yesterday’s leadership model. Leadership is not a mutually exclusive endeavor. The word “led” is a leader-focused term, that depends on the leader to pull and guide subordinates along. Whereas, the term follower empowers people with a choice to be in service of another. This may seem nuanced, but as a former assistant justice of the supreme court, Antonin Scalia, said, “Words have meaning. And their meaning doesn’t change.” (Senior, 2013).

The Leadership Equation

Leadership is a process where an individual positively influences groups of people to come together as a team to achieve a common goal (Northouse, 2021, p.6). This definition refutes the trait approach to leadership and focuses on the interaction between the leader and followers of influencing and being influenced (Northouse, 2021, p.352). Since interactions change across varying situations, we must take a more comprehensive view of leadership that recognizes each component with near equal proportional impact. Thus, an equation emerges as a summation of components to signify their combined effect on leadership. The Leadership Equation equals the leader plus the follower plus the situation. Below this is visually represented with the leader at the bottom of the three circles to offer a change in perspective for how we may view leadership. With the leader at the bottom in this diagram, it is as though the leader is assessing the situation and looking to their followers to see what they need. Ultimately, the leader has the responsibility for down and in and up and out decisions, so it is natural that we view the leader at the top, but when possible we should adjust our perspective to see if we glean something that we might not have seen before.

Leadership Equation: Leadership = Leader + Follower + Situation

Figure 1:  Leadership Equation Visualization

The “Led”

Throughout history, there have been good leaders, ambitious leaders, bad leaders, and we will continue to have that lot of leaders and more in the future. What every leader needs is someone to lead. We seem to be in societal default for the characteristics that put someone into a leadership role – a charismatic spokesperson, a larger-than-life stature, and many other “great [person]” traits from the trait approach to leadership (Northouse, 2021, p.27). Why do these paradigms prevail in a time when there is more information at our fingertips than we have ever had before? Perhaps the easy button is to go along to get along, accepting our fate as the one that is laid out before us by an outspoken person willing to take the helm. If that is the case, then we are much more likely to default to being “led.” Being “led” is a passive endeavor requiring the leader to provide direction, guide actions, and drive the results of the group. The “led” are not truly factored in as part of the leadership equation, they are merely a means to the leader’s end state.

Moving cattle on a ranch involves an interplay of ranchers, cattle dogs, cattle, and the environment. The ranchers lead and push the cattle and the dynamic cattle dog cajoles and vigorously encourage the cattle to move from grazing pastures to an enclosed protected area of the ranch. The cattle are no more concerned about where they are going or where they have been, the only concern they may really have is where they might get their next blade of grass to eat. In this situation, the cattle are the ones being “led.” Similarly, when people are “led” they are expected to be obedient, loyal, respectful, and cooperate (As cited in Moore, 1927, p.124).

To liken people to cattle, is a crude metaphor, at best. Yet, it symbolizes a relationship where the cattle are simply living an existence rather than accomplishing objectives to carrying out a strategic vision. People are no more cattle than they are “led,” and thus it is time to shift our mentality, focus, and perspective to an approach befitting the collective contribution to leadership and the team. We are dancing around a philosophical debate on “free will,” so for the sake of this topic, we shall infer that people have control over their actions, and as such, there is a correlational relationship between the actions of the leader, those being “led,” those choosing to follow, and the situation (Stanford, 2018). If following is a choice, being “led” may be considered a constraint, where not doing as the leader says is met with such dire consequences that being “led” is nested in the survival instincts of human behavior.

In the typologies of followership, the “led” might be considered to be passive, conformist, and compulsive bystanders (Northouse, 2021, p.354). The typologies of the “led” don’t bode well for a balanced leadership equation for success in competitive and complex environments. Now, there is another side to this coin in that the “led” can exhibit positive behaviors as well such as pragmatist, exemplary, partner, participant, and diehard (Northouse, 2021, p.354). To arrive at these positive typologies for the “led” we must then presume that the common understanding of “led” lends itself to these traits. If the term does not prompt these traits then we are back to our default comprehension of “led” as someone who is task-directed.

The First Followers of the Lone Nut Goldfish. (Adobe, 2022)

The Rise of the Followers

The leadership equation, Leadership = Leader + Follower + Situation, emphasizes the importance these three intersecting elements have on leadership (Northouse, 2021). Just as we are not born critical thinkers, we are also not born leaders or effective followers, these areas must be trained and developed over time and situations. A team is comprised of more than one person, and just as such there is no leader without people who choose to follow, there is no team either. Followers empower leaders with the privilege and responsibility to guide the team to a better place for the collective accomplishment of shared goals.  As such leaders empower followers with autonomy and trust to accomplish organizational goals.

Befitting to the discussion of the “led,” followers are also in need of education, training, and mentorship. The interplay between the leader and people who are “led”, rather than the leader and those that choose to follow is a dynamic outlined in the followership typologies. The most notable is The Kelley Typology which outlines effective followers as self-managed thinkers seeking to master skills who commit to the team for goal accomplishment with dependable courage (Northouse, 2021, p. 257). Kelley’s research also illuminated that followers impact an organization’s success by as much as 80%, whereas leader only impacts the remaining 20% (Schroeder, 2019). Perhaps a perspective and resource shift is in order with the emergence of more focused follower development to balance out leader development.

Clive Barrow, a New Zealand youth leader, stated in his TEDx Talk “If leadership is the spark, then followership is the flame” (Barrow, 2020, 19:55). The leader’s spark is the vision and catalyst of change, and the followers’ flame is turning that vision into reality (Barrow, 2020). Followership’s fundamental requirement is to embrace humility and demonstrate commitment to something beyond yourself by supporting from the shadows (Barrow, 2020). Success for the team comes from both leaders and followers’ creating the conditions for each other to succeed (Barrow, 2020, 18:43). It is in being vulnerable to provide service to each other without the expectation that trust and faith cultivate the foundation of a team.

“He who cannot be a great follower cannot be a great leader.”

– Aristotle (Schroeder, 2019).

The chase to get more followers (Adobe, 2022).

Today, when most of us hear the term follower social media accounts probably come to mind. Although that isn’t the type of following we have been referring to, there are similarities in how the support of a few garners the support of the many. There is no better example of this than Derick Sivers How to Start a Movement TED Talk that demonstrates both leader vulnerability and the power of the first follower (2010).

There is also a notion that being a follower is a sign of weakness, and that leadership is more captivating to our desires (Northouse, 2021, p.352). The perspective of followers being lesser than, maybe due to our individualistic western culture, but it is unlikely to transcend to the global view. Mostly, a negative view of followership is likely due to years of overemphasizing the leader and devaluing the importance of followers in the leadership equation. Often times as leader’s come and go in an organization, followers remain to be part of the next leadership equation.

As someone who has been both follower and leader, followership is the humility to be selfless in cultivating the achievement of others for our collective triumph. Although being the leader is an empowering responsibility, being a follower is leading with the freedom to choose to empower others. We are at the crossroads of change and the need to recognize and appreciate the rise of the followers is here to evolve the leadership model.

References

Adobe. (2022). Adobe Stock. Retrieved from https://stock.adobe.com/.

Barrow, C. (2020 December 10). How Followership Leads to Leadership. TEDx Talks. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNOUO_zZ_kg.

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership (9th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/books/9781071834473.

Moore, B. V. (1927). The May conference on leadership. Personnel Journal, 6, 124–128.

Schroeder, B. (2019 December 5). To Be A Great Leader, Learn How To Be A Great Follower: The Four Rules Of Following. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernhardschroeder/2019/12/05/to-be-a-great-leader-learn-how-to-be-a-great-follower-the-four-rules-of-following/?sh=4d4f07417325.

Sivers, D. (2010). How to start a movement. TED Talk. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement?language=en .

Senior, J. (2013 October 4). In Conversation: Antonin Scalia. New York Magazine. Retrieved from https://nymag.com/news/features/antonin-scalia-2013-10/.

Stanford University. (2018, August 21). Free Will. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#DoWeHaveFreeWill.

Servant Leadership at an Auto Detailing Shop

by

Servant leadership is something that occurs every day at my job. I work in an auto detailing shop teaching and assisting adults with cognitive disabilities on detailing cars. At my job, there are a couple people like me who would be considered the leaders. In this situation, the adults with cognitive disabilities are the followers.

At my work, I am constantly teaching and directing these adults. Each day I have about three people at a time that I am in charge of. I show them how each step of detailing a car is done. I evaluate them on each step and help them improve in areas that need work. My job is to have these adults detail a car to the company’s standards and that is what servant leaders do, they “serve others so that they can develop themselves and therefor perform to meet organization need” (PSU WC, 2019).

Our lesson mentioned that for servant leadership to work, the leaders have to treat their followers almost as partners (PSU WC, 2019). The way I do this at my work is by working alongside the employees and taking part in the detailing of the cars. This way I am more of an equal because I am doing the same job as my followers, I just stop what I am doing to help when needed.

Training the adults with cognitive disabilities is not always easy. There are times when I have to remind a worker multiple times how to do things, or times where I have to get them to focus more. My goal at my job is to get the workers to be able to do the best detailing job they can with the minimal amount of help. This is servant leadership because I am developing them to be more able to think for themselves and get them to get the work done on their own (PSU WC, 2019). When the employees eventually get the hang of things, then I am able to focus more on my parts of the detailing and get the cars finished faster.

 

 

 

References:

 

Pennsylvania State University World Campus. (2019). Lesson 11: ServantLeadership. Retrieved from https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/canvas/fa19/21981–15196/content/11_lesson/printlesson.html

LMX at Work: Deciphering the “High School Drama”

by

By: Susan Hicks

Recently I had the opportunity to disrupt my ‘status-quo’ at work. I got an amazing opportunity to ‘test drive’ a new position at work for 6 months to see if I liked the job and if I wanted to interview for the position. This opportunity was advantageous for me to see if I could handle the job with the enormous responsibilities of work and home. This ‘test drive’ was additionally beneficial for my employer to see if I could handle the job requirements that they would be expecting of me. Therefore, for 6 months I got to move to a different department and run my own team of individuals as their appointed manager. This experience is not about my leadership relationships with my followers, rather a shattering of the ‘status-quo’ in the relationship as me the follower to my leader – my new supervisor – in a foreign environment entirely unfamiliar to me which was the “High School Drama” that plays out behind the scenes amongst the management of my work.

Initially, I felt that I was being brought into the “in-crowd”, being accepted and taken under the wings of my new fellow co-workers. Everyone was vying for my attention, asking me about myself, my hobbies, my likes and dislikes and consequently being offered advice and guidance on job functions. The more I talked to co-workers, the more I found who I liked and those whom I really shouldn’t be talking to – the so-called ‘shunned ones’ who were not part of the “in-crowd”. At one point, I was actually given a dirty look from another co-worker for having lunch with someone they disproved of. This was playing out of a “high school drama” whereas there were cliques that if you wanted to advance and promote, you would incorporate into your network, and those who you talked to, yet remain cautious of long personal encounters for fear of retribution from your “group”. This biggest promoter of this popularity contest was our supervisor who acknowledged to me that if I had any questions or needed any help, to ask only from a small elite number of individuals – the approved ones.  Really, am I in high-school again?

As a member of the “in-group”, I found the task of fitting into their preconceived ideologies (how they treated each other and how they treated the followers in our teams) harder than just being myself and expressing my own opinions and viewing my own followers as my team instead of treating my followers the way they believed followers should be treated – like mules (now this really sounds like High-school now doesn’t it). I wanted to understand why those in the “out-group” weren’t making the promotions, weren’t leading the teams, weren’t getting the easy jobs within our group, and why they got lead around also like ‘a rented mules’.

To look at this situation from the leadership perspective of the Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX), we can gain insight in this “drama” and others like it, as to why this occurs and the strengths and weaknesses of this exchange in the efficiency of workplace task completion.

LMX theory in early research posited that there were “vertical linkages” between leaders and followers that resulted in either “in-group” (negotiated roles) or “out-group” (formal employment) relationships (PSU, 2014). These linkages occurred as relationships that resulted in those in the in-group that were found to receive more advice, concern, guidance, and in turn became more dependable, involved, and communicated with the leader (Northouse, 2013).

LMX-VDL

This is similar to my initial experiences in my “test drive” position as others (including the supervisor) brought me into their clique and took me under their wing. However, as perceptions of ideologies, work habits, and dissatisfaction for the treatment of others became misaligned with the others, the linkage became weak as I was compelled into the “out-group” that found less compatibility with the leader (and associates) and therefore turned my focus more on work related tasks (Northouse, 2013).

Later studies on this theory identify 3 phases that this relational exchange undergoes.

lmx-hypothesis

As I found myself progressing through Phase 1 (strangers getting to know one another), through Phase 2 (acquaintances providing “career-orientated social exchanges”), I found that the mature partnership of Phase 3 did not develop primarily due to differing ideologies and my temporary status in the position (Northouse, 2013). We did not have enough time to neither air our differences nor to fully understand each other’s moral and ethical backgrounds that brought us to the beliefs and values each of us hold to produce a relationship with the intensity that fosters in-group respect and admiration. Additionally, I never had the time to acquire the respect from my leader or co-workers to validate and understand that my ethical work perceptions were not going to be influenced from others to change how I treated people just because my title or in-group affiliation should accept this new perspective as my new status-quo. I fully understand that this tit-for-tat relational interplay allowed them to assess to which degree that I would perform task functions that would not see me as the freelancer, the loose cannon, or the troublemaker that could essentially bring turmoil to the department’s efficiency. They wanted to mold me to the structure of the group and trust that I would not in my temporary status bring shame to the department. These relationships of understanding that occur between the leader and the follower take time to develop in secure trusting mutual bonds of respect and trusting reciprocity that neither of us fully had time to cultivate. Instead of viewing this position as a “high school drama”, I have now come to appreciate and understand that respect is earned over time and cannot just merely be obtained in a six-month positional “test drive”.

I have since left this position to return back to my old job. There were no available interviews at the time of my return so I am left to the arduous task of using what I learned to decide in the future if I wish to re-enter this environment and to re-establish the leader-member exchange relationships in order to advance further in my career. I do not regret my journey. We must accept that in-groups and out-groups exist and in order to identify the in-group, there must be someone in the out-group to compare against. Furthermore, there are individuals who contribute more professionally and socially to the workplace experience (in-group ideology) and those who just come to work (out-group). This theory is descriptive in its ability to identify the presence of these groups and focuses primarily on leadership in this relationship. Interactions that are nurtured, cultivated, molded, and valued stem from a communicative process over time and research has provided us with a great deal of substantiating evidence to the effectiveness of followers in work related performance and satisfaction when this relational exchange is high. Conversely, on the surface we see that these relationships appear to be unfair in the promotion of those who we seemingly like or dislike according to the matching of work related ideologies on human treatment of superiors or followers alike. Therefore, this research doesn’t appear to explain why some are promoted more easily in the in-group. We can only surmise that this may involve access to knowledge, performance recognition, or the idea that leaders promote others inequitably based on the concept of advancing those most like themselves.

No one can answer if it is in one’s best interest to play in the “high-school drama” popularity contest and to go with the in-group. Only the individual can assess if they are willing to pay the price of relinquishing their moral and ethical work obligations to play in a shallow tit-for-tat relational exchange that on the surface appears to be childish in nature. However, the building of relationships over time that creates and builds with intensity, intrapersonal reciprocity of respect and trust that does not surrender basic tenants of ones principals, allows the cultivation of accepted understanding and leader-member exchange appreciation that can effectively allow everyone to advance within careers yet still remained focused on quality relationships and work related efficiency.

References:

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pennsylvania State University. (2014). PSYCH 485 Lesson 8: Leader-Member exchange Theory (LMX). Retrieved March 4, 2014 from

There is more to leadership than leaders

by

The trait approach and the skills approach are both important pieces of the leadership process. Combined they show that many successful leaders start out with desired traits (trait approach) and that those traits can be developed and behaviors can be learned to make the leader more effective (skills approach) (Northouse, 2013). But what about the follower? These two leader-centric approaches can only be a piece of a bigger puzzle because leaders are only a piece of the leadership process. A leader cannot be a leader without followers no matter what they have for skills and traits. And what about the situation? Again, the trait and skills approaches are missing a major factor in the leadership process–context. Leaders and followers react differently depending on the situation. There are some situations in which one person is the leader and there are some situations where a different person is the leader. The process of leadership includes not just leaders, but followers and situations as well.

 

I think that for leaders to be successful they have to understand both the followers and the situation, meaning leaders must be able to identify what response the situation invokes in themselves and their followers. Leaders who look to be effective in many situations must be prepared to identify the needs of their followers in a specific situation and adapt accordingly. That’s what I like about the situational leadership and path-goal approaches. The situational leadership approach mandates that leaders “match their style to the competence and commitment of the subordinates” in a specific situation (Northouse, 2013, p. 99). In the path-goal approach the leader determines his or her behavior depending on the characteristics of the follower and the characteristics of the task being performed (Northouse, 2013). If only the leader’s traits and skills are taken into account two entire sections of the leadership process are ignored. For example in the path-goal leadership diagram below, taken from Northouse 2013, there would be no way for a leader to reach the level at which he or she can motivate subordinates to reach their goals and be productive without insight on the characteristics of the subordinate and of the task being performed.

pathgoalleadership.png

I think that leader-centric leadership approaches are a good start and combined with other theories leader-centric approaches are very effective. However, leader-centric approaches like the trait and skills theories can never and should never be the sole leadership theory applied in producing leaders. Effective leadership cannot exist without the consideration of the leader, the follower, and the situation.

Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Skip to toolbar