Customer Reviews

Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders (Center for Public Leadership)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Kellerman makes the claim that followers are important, every bit as important as leaders (xviii). She defines followers as "subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line" (xix). Followership "implies a relationship (rank), between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of the former to the latter" (xx). Kellerman observes that followers are "less likely now than they were in the past" to follow orders without questions, never voice opinions, and know their place, and leaders make a mistake when they do not pay attention to and take seriously their followers (xxi).

The book is divided into three parts. In part I Kellerman explores the nature of followership: separating fact from fiction, the relationship between leaders and followers, and the various types of followers. Part II contains descriptions of the five types of followers Kellerman identifies: isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. In part III the author turns her attention to the future and theorizes that followers will have more influence than ever before. Over the course of the book Kellerman surveys the existing literature on followership and traces the historical development of the topic, and addresses why individuals and groups follow leaders, the influence that followers have on one another, how followers follow leaders, what makes followers "good" or "bad," and how followers can take on bad leaders.

Barbara Kellerman makes a significant contribution to the practice of leadership through her compelling argument that leaders must pay attention to and take seriously their followers. This is true now more than ever before and will be essential in the future as the line between leaders and followers becomes increasingly blurred. Kellerman methodically explains why this is an important topic for leaders and gives relevant and helpful illustrations of the different types of followers and why these followers matter. The author leans too heavily on political points of discussion, but she is honest about her bias as a political scientist. That said, leaders from all walks of life, whether politics, business, education, or any other organization, would be wise to read Followership and consider the implications of the material for their particular leadership setting. More importantly, those who are followers would reap enormous benefits from Kellerman's work in order to understand how important they are to the organization and to learn what separates bad followers from good ones.

There are many reasons why Followership is an important book for pastoral leaders and those who work with congregations. Too often pastors and other ministerial leaders receive both the blame and the praise for the ebb and flow of congregational life. Kellerman is clear that leaders are important, but perhaps not as important as followers to the overall life of the organization, or the church, in this case. Certainly the topic of following is a familiar one in church life because of the nature of discipleship and following Christ, but there is more to be learned. Kellerman's words sound an alarm for congregations by pointing out "better followers beget better leaders" (xxii). Ministerial leaders can gain insight from Kellerman on how to bring greater followership education to their congregations. This would include not only the importance of following Christ as individuals and together as the body of Christ, but also what it means to be a good member of a church. Followership education could address Kellerman's two criteria for "good" followers: level of engagement (some is better than none) and the source of motivation (public interests over self-interests) (229-230).

Another important aspect of followership that is applicable to congregational life is the issue of accountability. Kellerman observes that self-interest motivates followers more often than not, and the benefits of following outweigh the benefits of refusing to follow - especially in a follower's relationship with other followers (49). Followers exert powerful influence on one another to conform, and this fits with a biblical understanding of accountability if congregants will spur one another on to love and good deeds and take responsibility for one another's lives. Followers may also be the key for congregations to address the anecdotal "80/20" rule, where twenty percent of the members do eighty percent of the work. Kellerman points out how followers have a tendency to disengage and be uninvolved. It may be up to other followers, and not church leaders, to convince the uninvolved that they need to re-engage with church life.

Ministerial leaders will also want to pay attention to Kellerman's five types of followers and the characteristics of each one, for they can all be found in church life. Pastors must not only recognize the different types of followers, but understand how best to serve each one (or confront in love, when necessary). Followership makes a good argument for ministerial leaders to not only take seriously their followers and the impact they have on church life, but to also provide followers with a good understanding of their importance and what it means to be a good follower.

In recent years, especially in the business world, relationships between "leaders" and "followers" have changed significantly. Throughout most of human history, leaders at the highest level (e.g. tribal chiefs, war lords, monarchs, and tyrants) were almost always those who seized or inherited positions of authority. Business leaders were owners. Over time, the concept of self-determination evolved to a point when political authority began to shift to elected representatives. Stock companies with shared ownership emerged in the business world. Still later, labor unions were formed to secure and protect workers' rights. Throughout this lengthy process, the respective roles of the leader and follower reflected various social, political, and economic changes. Today, it is often difficult to answer a rather simple question, "Who leads whom?"

According to Barbara Kellerman, "followership is the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship (rank), between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of the former to the latter." Her book departs from the leader-centric approach that dominates much of the current consideration of leadership and management. "Focusing on followers enables us to see the parts they play, even when they do little or nothing. And it empowers them, which is to say that it empowers us." Kellerman duly acknowledges that the line that separates superiors from their subordinates is often "blurred." Also, "the line between them tends to shift. Some of us are followers most of the time and leaders some f the time. Others are the opposite." Finally, that many people are superiors and subordinates simultaneously. Moreso now than at any prior time that I recall, our roles are determined within a context and, as Kellerman correctly suggests, "followers are creating change and changing leaders."

These are among the questions to which she responds:

1. What does George Orwell's essay, "Shooting an Elephant," reveal about leadership and followership?

2. What are some of the most common misconceptions about followership?

3. How and why are leaders and followers "inextricably enmeshed"?

4. Why do people follow their leaders, even those whom Jean Lipman-Blumen has characterized as "toxic"?

5. How do they follow them?

6. What are the different types of followers, "all in some way engaged"?

7. Why does synthesizing leadership and followership, leaders and followers, involve "no more than a natural progression"? And why is it beneficial to do so?

8. What can (and should) followers do when tempted to "resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their leaders"?

9. "Standing up and speaking out is not, of itself, good enough." Why not?

Note: James O'Toole also has much of value to say about this in an essay ("Speaking Truth to Power") included in recently published book, Transparency, co-authored with Warren Bennis and Daniel Goleman.

10. Why is a shift "away from leaders and toward followers with growing demands and higher expectations" by and large a "positive development"?

Of special interest to me is the material Kellerman provides in Chapters 5-8 when citing real-world examples of followers who were "Bystanders" during the Holocaust, "Participants" who were involved in the "saga of Vioxx" at Merck, "Activists" who acted upon allegations of clergy sex with minors in the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, and "Diehards" who "wanted to catch, to kill, the enemy responsible for the attacks on American soil [on September 11, 2001] but questioned the judgment of those who formulated subsequent responses to them, such as Operation Enduring Freedom that included involvement in Afghanistan (Operation Anaconda), beginning in March of 2002. Kellerman's discussion of Bystanders reminds me of the fact that Dante reserved the last and worst ring in hell for those who, in a moral crisis, preserve their neutrality. They are followers "who stand by and do nothing." As for Participants, they "clearly favor their leaders and the groups and organizations of which they are members - or they are clearly opposed. [They invest] some of what they have (time, for example) to try to have an impact." With regard to Activists, they "feel strongly about their leaders and act accordingly. They are eager, energetic, and engaged...[and] work hard either on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them," such as Cardinal Bernard Law of Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. As for Diehards, they are defined by their dedication, including their willingness to risk life and limb. Being a Diehard is all-consuming. It is who you are. It determines what you do." Those who have Diehards among their followers "have a special responsibility in those situations in which lives are at stake." Kellerman cites Colin Powell and George Tenet as two examples of leaders who remained silent rather than opposing the American invasion of Iraq, "putting their loyalty to the president ahead of their loyalty to the people. Consider it a lesson in how not to follow." Whether or not you agree with Kellerman's assessment, at least in this situation, Powell and Tenet were both leaders and followers.

This raises a number of questions about values on which judgments are based. Kellerman devotes an entire chapter to examining the values of different types of followers, again citing real-world examples to illustrate her key points. The examples include Kitty Genovese whose cries for help were heard but ignored by more than a dozen Bystanders as she bled to death on a street in Queens. Kellerman also discusses "good followers" (who support a leader who is good and oppose a leader who is bad) and "bad followers" (who do nothing or who support a leader who is bad and oppose a leader who is good). Then in the final chapter, she recommends "something new and different" when thinking about how and why, until now, analyses of power, authority, and influence have been leader-centric, fixated on those who rank high." She identifies "six all-important assumptions" on which her reasoning is based, making a convincing argument that "those who have less power, authority, and influence [nonetheless] do have ways of impacting on those who have more." As I worked my way through this final chapter, I thought about two leaders, one who was good and another who was bad. Mohandas Gandhi was both effective and ethical. Over time, he attracted an increasingly greater number of followers, many of them Activists. His single greatest challenge was to convince a sufficient number of Bystanders to become at least Participants. He urged his followers to believe in themselves and in their destiny. In contrast, Adolph Hitler was effective (at least for a few years) but certainly not ethical. His single greatest challenge was to attract a sufficient number of Participants in his various initiatives (e.g. the military and manufacturing) who would, however, function as Bystanders who deferred entirely to his judgment. He urged his followers to believe in him and in his plan.

Barbara Kellerman offers an eloquent as well as convincing argument that there can be - and should be - a symbiotic balance of leadership and followership based on mutually respect and trust. One of a good leader's most important responsibilities is to help prepare her or his good followers to become more actively and productively involved in their organization's decision-making process. (Hitler is reported to have made most of his decisions without consulting anyone whereas Gandhi sought out the counsel of as many others as possible, especially from his staunchest opponents.) The most effective leaders in the business world are renowned for their uncanny ability to ask the right questions, for their insatiable curiosity to obtain more and better information from as many different sources as possible, and for their deference to the judgment of others who are better qualified to answer a question, solve a problem, or suggest a course of action. That is to say, these executives know when to lead and when to follow.

Professor Kellerman makes it clear that leaders are not leaders until followers trust them and effectively empower them. We learn how the power of followership shifts and changes, for better or for worse, depending on whether there is a shared-value deal, activated by leadership but defined by followers--stakeholders, investors, customers, or congregations.

Barbara Kellerman makes a strong argument for the "Followership" paradigm. In a world where strong voices have dominated; the formerly quiet are speaking up and "Leaders" best listen if they want to retain their constituencies.

Kellerman's examples of the isolate, bystander, participant, activist and diehard roles that followers assume have provided credibility to the power of both good and bad leaders throughout history.

If you can get past the over emphasis on Adolf Hitler, this is a promising and provacative read!

"Leaders listen up and pay attention; the silent majority has found its voice"

Barbara Kellerman's "Bad Leadership" is a fabulous prologue to readers of "Followership". Read them sequentially. The former is better written and better organized. Each has value as you assemble your management armamentarium. Although followership and leadership may be coincidental, one is either a follower or a leader. Neither is really culturally superior, but each is different. Of course, followers may transmogrify into leaders. Let's not be naive enough to believe that followers, while following, are leaders.