weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright 2001 ă weLEAD, Inc.
Where Have All the Followers Gone?
One Leader's Perspective
By Greg L. Thomas
In
last month’s article entitled “Where Have All the Leaders Gone”, I discussed whether
we really have a modern scarcity of leadership. My conclusion is that we don’t.
Thankfully, leadership is still with us today in a vast array of organizations
and families. It is not as prominent or recognized as in the past for many
reasons. But there certainly is a gaping dilemma in many segments of our
society. This dilemma is that ongoing social problems continue to fester and
plague our world. These social problems cry out for leadership! Many issues
remain seemingly unsolvable; workers are frustrated, discouragement is rampant,
poverty entrenches most inhabitants of our planet, families are fragmented, and
the social fabric of our culture seems to be fraying at the edges. So where is
the leadership needed to solve these difficult problems? In many cases it seems
to have been rendered impotent! Particularly in the western world, leadership
is more difficult and complex than ever because followers are fewer and
often less committed. How did we get to this point in the 21st
century? Let’s first look at a history of followership before we answer the
vital question of where all the followers have gone.
Anciently, the equation
of leader and follower was much simpler. All societies were hierarchical in
structure. A select few were born into leadership positions because of family,
power or wealth. The overwhelming majority of individuals were born into this
rigidly structured society. When the leader gathered an army for war, thousands
of followers gathered to fight for the king or leader. When the leader wanted
to build a city, thousands of followers simply obeyed the edict. Why? The
option was to do as your told or suffer dire
consequences, including possible death. Around the world all cultures
reinforced this hierarchical model. The relationship between leaders and
followers was simple. The leaders held all power, authority and real wealth.
The followers obeyed the leaders because it meant an opportunity for continued
survival. Many who have studied leadership have read Sun Tzu’s writings of The
Art of War, a collection of instructions for military leaders on how to
conduct war. In one episode, Sun Tzu boldly beheads the King of Wu’s favorite
concubines for simply not obeying his orders! Again, the relationship between
leaders and followers was simple…but often ruthless.
Occasionally
a follower might ascend to a position of authority or rulership
due to a social revolution, assassination or a coup, but the basic structure
remained the same for thousands of years. As far back as 5,000 years ago
Egyptian hieroglyphics clearly differentiated between leaders and followers.
Obviously, much of the relationship between ruler and “the ruled” was due to
coercive power, so I use the term leader very loosely in this historical
setting. However, even during these ages, intellectuals arose to emphasize that
leaders had the moral responsibility to serve their followers and meet their
needs. For example, Aristotle was concerned that those who aspired to be
leaders in Greek society lacked virtue. The Chinese classics written in the
sixth century B.C. are filled with advice about the leader’s responsibilities
to their people. Confucius urged leaders to set a moral example. Jesus Christ
told his followers that greatness means becoming a servant. Unfortunately,
these enlightened voices were seldom heard or heeded by most leaders or rulers.
Things
began to change when the Renaissance and Reformation occurred in Europe. Within
a short period of time delicate democratic roots also entered the cultures of
the western world. Followers (the average citizen) began to have a small voice
and greater control of their lives. With the establishment of the Republics,
followers in these nations began to have greater political control over their
lives. The industrial revolution brought more change as people left their
agricultural roots and moved to large cities. Unionism gave abused workers a
voice and attitudes about followership continued to change. The major reason
for this change was choice! No longer was the only real option to dutifully
follow the leader or die. People who don’t like their political leaders vote
for another. People who don’t like their jobs find another one or consciously
reduce their efforts on the job. People who are unhappy with their religious
heritage end their association and move on.
Not
only does choice become an option in western cultures, it soon becomes a
right and finally a source of pride and distinction. This human resolve has
also spread to non-western cultures and if recent history is any indicator, it
will continue to spread. When the communist governments fell in Eastern Europe,
toward what type of government did the people turn? Who among us can ever
forget the image of that single solitary figure standing down a tank in
Tiananmen Square in China? The goddess of liberty will someday return to the
people of China. Inherent in the
principles of freedom is the right to choose who and what we follow. The
follower of the 21st century has far greater options, demands and
expectations than the follower of 500 or 1000 years ago. Leadership scholar
Robert Kelley has written, “Organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of
how well their leaders lead, but partly also on the basis of how well their
followers follow.” He continues by saying, “Instead of seeing the leadership
role as superior to and more active than the role of the follower, we can think
of them as equal but different activities.”
What does all this mean
for the modern leader? It means followers have a choice to support who or what
they desire and if they are not satisfied, they will vote with their feet…they
walk away. No longer will followers accept a win/lose relationship with the
leaders getting all they want at the expense of the followers. Yes, people are still
willing to be followers, especially for a good or noble cause. However,
followers expect more from leadership. They expect their leaders to care for
them, treat them with dignity, act responsibly and help them to meet their
needs. Any leader who fails to do these things will soon meet with an exodus of
followers. The only exception to this is when followers willingly submit to an
autocratic culture for personal or philosophical reasons.
Most
people eventually come in contact with some type of leader. It may be a
religious leader, political leader, corporate leader or education leader. This
early contact will often influence how individuals view themselves in a
leader/follower relationship. Unfortunately, when this initial experience is
painful, it leaves a deep impression on the follower. If the leader is
abusive, self-absorbed or immoral the follower will become suspicious of the
motives of the leader and the organization. This experience will weaken their
desire to follow others in the future. Sadly, there has historically been far
too much abuse and neglect of followers and this neglect continues in most
organizations till this day! The expectations of followers have changed over
the centuries, but many leaders still maintain the ego and arrogance associated
with the tyrants of past ages. For this reason dedicated followers are fewer.
As I mentioned in last month’s article, many people have become uncommitted observers.
This is a growing force in our modern culture and makes leadership more difficult
than ever before. The observer is typically not interested in any
particular mission or a vision, but in maintaining a distance from
leaders and their followers.
Where have all the
followers gone? They are still with us but they now have greater expectations
and roles. They are waiting for a new breed of leadership that understands they
are a precious untapped resource. They are looking for leaders and causes that
allow them ownership in the cause and help them to reach their own
individual goals. They are looking for leaders they can trust, admire, respect
and follow. Educator Joseph Rost sums it up well when
he opines, “Followers and leaders develop a relationship wherein they influence
one another as well as the organization and society, and that is leadership. They do not do the same things in the
relationship, just as the composers and musicians do not do the same thing in
making music, but they are both essential to leadership.”
Comments
to: gthomas@leadingtoday.org
BACK TO weLEAD HOME PAGE
About the author:
Greg has an extensive thirty-five years experience in public
speaking and has spoken to hundreds of audiences worldwide. Greg has a Master
of Arts degree in Leadership from
Bellevue University, where he also has served as an adjunct professor teaching
courses in business management and leadership since 2002. His first book, 52 Leadership Tips
(That Will Change How You Lead Others) was published
in 2006 by WingSpan Press. His second book, Making
Life's Puzzle Pieces Fit was published in March 2009. Both are available at
amazon.com. Greg is also the president of Leadership
Excellence, Ltd and a Managing Partner of the Leadership Management
Institute. Leadership
Excellence, Ltd. effectively builds
individuals and organizations to reach their highest potential through enhanced
productivity and personal development using a number of proven programs. He is also the president and founder
of weLEAD Incorporated.
References:
Hartwick Leadership Cases,
(1994) Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Oneonta, New York: The Hartwick Humanities in Management Institute
Block,
Peter, (1996) Stewardship – Choosing Service Over
Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers
Wren,
Thomas, (1995) The Leaders Companion –
Insights on Leadership Through the Ages. New York: The Free Press