Managing Leadership^®

Typically, leadership has been viewed as a positive phenomenon. The modern leadership movement, in particular, has promoted various models of individual leadership for emulation by the heads of organizations, or those who aspire to those positions. When thought has been spared for those who are “led,” various superficially developed notions of “followership” have been spun out. These are also positive, generally, although their basic thrust is to emphasize the value of the followers in validating the virtues, and in giving expression to, the aims of the leader.

Recently, however, a darker view of the matter has begun to emerge. Whether in reaction to the excesses of the modern leadership movement itself, or merely to those of its devotees, observers are remarking on the shortcomings both of individual leadership and of the “followership” that, they now argue, perpetuates those shortcomings.

A review in the 2 September 2004 edition of The Economist covers two books that are critical of the sort of view of individual leadership that, viewed in isolation, has produced many of those modern practitioners that have perpetrated contemptible acts ranging from genocide to the collapse of huge, but hollow, business enterprises. In addition to condemning such leaders and cataloging them and their failings, these books attempt to understand why their followers let them get away with it. Based on the review, it would appear, however, that we are offered little more than some, perhaps, thought-provoking questions.

One of the authors is quoted as explaining leadership to be the interactive relationship between leaders and followers, which results in the latter being persuaded or motivated to follow the former. From this uninspiring foundation, we go on to learn that “followership” is our response to the presence of a “leader” who gives a personal sense of meaning to our lives, of our place in the stream of events in which we find ourselves. Both authors seem to focus, however, on the problem of how to limit the damage done by bad leaders, or by good leaders gone bad. The review returns to topic by closing with a bit of psychobabble from a psychologist/consultant who argues that “followership” is, in essence, an extension into adulthood of childish dependence on others.

What are we supposed to conclude from that? That we are like the family dog, our development permanently arrested in a childhood dependence on the master by the very process of domestication (or, leadership)? Is individual leadership, and our craving for it, really so toxic? Or is this just the other side of the coin, the valuable metal of which is an untoward emphasis on the virtues (good or bad) of the leader, and the alloy filler of which is the followership, viewed paternalistically as an incompletely developed mass, lacking truly good bloodlines, acquiring value only from its association and supportive interaction with the greatness to which it clings?

The original side of that coin, however positive a role it pretends to assign to “followership,” is just as paternalistic. Even Mary Parker Follett, whose insights in the 1920s and 1930s were, generally, so incisive and prescient, and whose fundamental observations about organizational design were praised in Managing Leadership, viewed followership in this way. She argued that followers “have a very active role to play and that is to keep the leader in control of a situation.” That pretty much sums up the view of the modern leadership movement.

A more accurate view, however, is that leadership neither resides solely at the top of the organization or of any particular subcomponent of it, nor does followership passively await instructions (or actively seek out opportunities) to express that leadership. Such views, whether taken in the context of a generally positive or negative view of leadership, distort the actual operation of this phenomenon in organizations of all kinds. Leadership, as explained in Managing Leadership, arises from within the organization, generated from the group’s cohesion, which itself issues from the purpose that the members have been gathered together to collaboratively accomplish. Leadership is expressed by all of those in the organization who partake of this group cohesion. The modern cult of individual leadership, albeit usually unknowingly, suppresses and distorts this natural phenomenon. Intelligent managers, in contrast, cultivate and deploy it.

Please drop us a note and let us know what you think about this important topic. Email the author from the link at the right of this page, or click on the comment link below to register your observations directly here on the site. We look forward to hearing from you!

Coming up for discussion:

We will complete our review of Professor John Adair’s work in the area of leadership with a review of his book, “The Inspirational Leader.” As always, we will discuss the concepts of this book in their own right, as well as comparing them with the concepts offered in Managing Leadership.