Interesting news from my other job

If there's anything I've learned from ballroom dance, it's that good leading is also following. In dance, followers do not need to follow direction given or they may have knowledge that, if the leader knew, would change the lead. For example, a follower may not feel comfortable with a particular step. Or she may see that the couple is about to run into another couple if they perform the move the leader wishes to do. Thus, to lead a good follow, one must also follow the follow! In general, this translates to taking feedback from followers and changing leadership accordingly.

Robin says: Very good point!

The underlying premise is that followers are less than leaders. If leadership and followership were viewed as two distinct and equally important skill sets, we'd have star followers and star leaders. Instead, the star followers seek promotion into leadership because they are taught to desire "advancement" into the so-called better roles.

I like to know the big picture, but I'd rather just be responsible for my part of it, becasue that's what I'm really good at.

I agree with your criticism on the “Never Follow” slogan from Take the Lead. It didn’t even represent the themes of the movie. I am sure it was developed with only promotional aims to attract teenagers. However, Banderas’ character was a leader for sure. He took the kids to a place they thought they couldn’t go, and achieve more through challenges. And who doesn’t love Alfre Woodard?
I think it is a mistake to expect or assume that people in charge (bosses) are actual leaders. Work places don’t necessarily need leaders to make the institution successful. They just need someone to allow the workers to reach their potential – enabling them with an open and positive workspace. People in power that believe they are leaders, solely because of position or success, might be a little full of themselves. The leveling effect of post-industrial society has taken place with equalizing skills between bosses and staff, if not now weighing in favor of the staff. Everyone has a degree; everyone has an office. And, in unskilled work environments, staff is less likely to be considered as disposable chattel like in the past. I would imagine that in 99% of work environments, everyone has the role of a “participant” with one of them signing the checks. I think Heskett’s article misidentifies and mischaracterizes workplace relationships in the designs of Leadership.
Leaders, like Banderas, take people places by changing how they self-identify. Such a phenomenon takes a lot of energy and inner conflict – do people have that much energy to be in this environment at work every day? Leaders have to identify and promote a safe path on which to carry people. I don’t think they necessarily have to justify their position of power with equal dialogues with their followers – although it is most probable that they achieved this position through such openness - and understanding and empathy is crucial. Followers want to be led by someone they see as having a higher mission or understanding. So, leaders probably won’t be found or sought out at the workplace; more so, they will be in social institutions where people are more apt to define their character by.
The workload of those involved in both workplace and leader/follower relationships also help differentiate the two. In workplaces, being participatory, it would never be accepted if either those in charge or the staff thought the other wasn’t working as hard. Success will obviously falter if the boss is playing golf all day and the staff is plugging away. Yet, in a successful leader/follower relationship, it is accepted that the Follower will have to do the hardest work through growth. Although the Leader expends enormous energy, the Leader knows the success of the movement or process depends on the success of each individual Follower, and it is assumed the Leader has already done the work. This could be explained a little better.
Maybe the two relationships can be described with the phrase, “Because I said so.” A workplace person in charge has every power and right to say, “Because I said so,” whatever outcome that brings. A Leader would never think to use that statement. Edward Johnson, III could probably get away with telling his assistant to go home “Because I said so.” (No slur intended) But, can you imagine Martin Luther King Jr. telling people to “Get to the top of that mountain” - “because I said so!”?

Have you ever studied servant leadership? I took a leadership class in college (part of the communication major) and the focus was mainly on servant leadership. It can be a little pie in the sky, but it is more of a collaborative approach than hierarchy. The leader is serving the needs of the group rather than building their own power and there's a lot of focus on ethics and growth.

This post just made me think of that because it's a type of leadership that absolutely doesn't succeed without good followers, people with ideas and an investment in whatever the cause is.

Two comments:

To Mr. Maceda: excellent post. There is typically a great deal of difference between a leader and a manager in the workplace. Leaders happen at any level, not just in the management ranks.

Miss Conduct: excellent topic! This reminds me of (true story) a teenage child trying for one of a very few highly coveted summer slots (can't remember now if it was an internship, or a ballet school, etc.). Part of the application required an essay on "Why we should accept you based on your leadership skills." This applicant wrote a stunning response about her skills as a follower, an executor of dreams, and a committed dreamer herself. But her skills did not necessarily lie in inspiring others, a facet she believed to be key to being a leader. Not only did she get into the summer program, but she also received a reply from the reviewing committee that hers was the most honest answer ever received!

To go along a bit with comment #4, one of the most valuable texts I studied in college was a book called "The Courageous Follower," which outlined the importance of good "followership." There are far more followers in an organization than there are leaders, and most leaders (managers, team leaders, department heads) are followers as well. If I recall correctly (and it's been over a decade since I studied this text and applied it to a management course) "courageous followership" recognizes that the optimal way to organize a group is to state clear goals and manage to those goals. When a leader's actions detract from the goal, it is the follower's duty to have the courage to speak up and re-direct the group back to goal (or encourage discourse and a change of goal if neccessary).

I don't recall if this was part of the text or something else in the course, but I also learned about and embraced the "upside-down" pyramid approach to hierarchy (which sounds like a precursor to servant leadership). The front-line staff are there to serve the customer/client, each manager is there to empower those staff members to do their jobs effectively and effeciently, and on up (down) the chain, managers are there to develop products and services, take care of the administration of the business, make sure the company is solvent, etc. but that is all to enable the front-line personnel to do their jobs and deliver for the customer.

I am fortunate that I have been able to spend my professional carreer in an organization that embraces these principles, with a manager who works like this too. It was nice to graduate and learn that this type of organization structure and behavior exists in the real world and not just on paper.