When Leaders Become Followers
I would have to say that the biggest eye-opener has been that, while I've long been interested in leaders and leadership, have studied both, and have helped people learn to lead for years, I've been off the mark. But, I'm not alone, and it is no wonder. The leadership media can be confusing, and some very well-liked authors in the leadership press are getting it wrong.
Read much on leadership, and you quickly recognize that few authors tell us just what it is that they call leadership. Is this important? Joseph Rost, one of the foremost thinkers in the leadership field today says it is, and I have really come around to Rost's way of thinking. If we are to improve our understanding and practice of leadership, we must first agree on what leadership is. In other words, we must define leadership.
In his influential book Leadership for the 21st Century, Rost offers a definition that numerous leadership scholars accept as foundational. According to Rost, leadership is “an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.”
While Rost has advanced the field toward an accepted definition, his still does not quite satisfy me. Consequently, I define leadership as a process dependent on interactive, “influence” relationships between people who intend substantial changes reflecting their mutual purposes.
So what does all that mean? First and foremost, leadership is a process — not a person, not personality traits, not the behaviors — but a process that leaders and followers engage in together.
The essence of leadership lies in the process of influencing. Let's say that influence means one person's actions designed to change another person's attitudes, beliefs, values or behavior. Without influence we can't exercise leadership.
The process of influencing can't occur without relationships between people that make that influence possible. I use the term “interactive” to show these influence relationships as being mutual, reciprocal and multi-directional. In other words, followers influence leaders, leaders influence followers, and peers influence each other.
The words “leader” and “follower” are conspicuous by their absence in my definition. Specifically including those terms can erroneously imply fixed roles or fixed positions. In today's organizations, hierarchical structures largely have given way to team structures with more than one leader. More importantly, I firmly believe that in any one leadership relationship, followers become leaders and leaders become followers depending on the situation. So in my definition of leadership, I just go with “people.”
Scholars widely accept that the purpose of leadership is to create and promote change, and that people involved in leadership are not just the subject of change, but also its driving force. Some would go so far as to say that contemporary leadership is all about change-seeking and change-making and little more. That is why I include the intention of “substantial change” in my definition.
Like Rost, I include the idea of reflecting mutual purposes. In the leadership environment, at our best, we pursue what all parties want. At least, our pursuits should be in the interest of all parties, not just change desired by the leader or the organization without regard for constituents.
Scholars tell us that we are entering a new era of human society, a “post-industrial age.” Researchers in the leadership studies field tell us that a changing society requires a changed perspective on leaders and leadership. In this brave, new post-industrial world, the leader's role will be to:
- Understand, create, maintain and, when necessary, destroy organizational culture.
- Serve as a symbol, or the symbolic head, of the organization.
- Establish vision (or direction) and create focus and common purpose.
- Build commitment for that vision.
- Create a sense of community or organization.
- Enable free choice and self-determination, what we commonly call “empowering people.”
There is no question whether leaders are born or made. People's traits contribute to their leadership capacity and are part of leadership. However, they are not essential to leadership, and neither is charisma. People can learn the processes and skills of leadership; everyone may exercise leadership in a given situation if properly prepared and motivated. That is not to say that everyone will or can lead, but that leadership is accessible to all.
In his book Visionary Leadership, renowned author and scholar Burt Nanus asserts, “There is no more powerful engine driving an organization toward excellence and long-range success than an attractive, worthwhile and achievable vision of the future widely shared.” The leader of any effective organization must guide it to identify its collective vision. A compelling vision that is in the mutual interest of leaders and followers sets a common direction, empowers people and enables them. A common vision also helps people transcend their self-interest and focus on the common good.
In the leadership environment, power is not inherently good or bad, but just part of the equation. Power is inherent in leadership relationships because leadership is a process of influence, and power provides influence potential. People will accept leadership only if they have some reason to allow themselves to be influenced or to follow. A leader's potential to influence others, to give them a reason to follow, flows from the leader's base of power. The misuse of power can be controlling and leave the follower with little choice, what we normally describe as coercion. However, power also enables leaders to influence because the leader is trusted, revered or considered an expert.
In my experience, the relationships of power to influence and influence to leadership represent concepts that are not well-known among many people assigned to leadership positions. It's sad to see people assigned to lead, but who are ineffective and frustrated because they simply do not understand what their base of power is or is not, and because they are attempting inappropriate styles of leadership for their circumstances.
Management and leadership are two distinct but complementary systems, both of which are necessary for organizational success. Each system has its own functions. Generally speaking, management is about coping with complexity and providing stability. Leadership is about vision and creating and coping with change.
In the post-industrial era, successful leaders will understand the concept of organizational culture. Given our diversifying society and work force, effective leaders will need to foster organizational cultures that overcome barriers to opportunity and empower people equally.
Followers or constituents are central to the process of leadership, and the trend toward empowerment will continue and intensify. Given the changing nature of our society and of work, the influence relationships that we know as leadership will have to be mutual and multi-directional. In other words, leaders and followers will influence each other, and in many situations the follower will have as much influence as the leader. Increasingly, leaders and followers are situational roles more than fixed roles or fixed positions.
In our post-industrial, knowledge- and technology-driven society, a good leader enables followers to:
- Develop judgment and initiative.
- Grow and become better contributors.
- Succeed without strong leadership.
- Gain independence and become leaders.
In my last column, I asserted that credibility is the foundation of leadership and referenced James Kouzes and Barry Posner who, in their book Credibility, cite the results of five research studies to argue that credibility makes a difference and that people can easily distinguish between the behaviors of individuals who are credible and those who are not. People want to follow those who can get the job done and demonstrate leadership expertise. Followers' perceptions of effectiveness bear on the leader's credibility, the followers' willingness to follow, and the leader's ability to lead.
Healthy ethical relationships between leaders and followers are vital to effective leadership. In their books Ethics: The Heart of Leadership and Ethical Dimensions of Leadership, scholars Joanne Ciulla, Rabindra Kanungo and Manuel Mendonca contend that a person's understanding of leadership is seriously incomplete, if not distorted, if one does not consider the ethics or morality of leadership. Leaders are only truly effective when they are motivated by a concern for other people.
Mike DeGrosky is chief executive officer of the Guidance Group, a consulting firm specializing in the human and organizational aspects of the fire service. His interests include leadership, strategy, and bringing the concepts of learning organizations and high-reliability organizing alive in fire organizations. He is currently completing a master's degree in organizational leadership. He can be reached at info@guidancegroup.org.
Acceptable Use Policy blog comments powered by Disqus
