Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders

Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders

Angela C. Browne

BUS 515-Organizational Behavior and Leadership

November 27, 2016

Dr. William L. Whitlatch

Introduction

In this paper I will discuss the different types of followership, as defined in the book titled “Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders,” written by Barbara Kellerman.   There is no leader without at least one follower. Yet the modern leadership industry, now a quarter-century old, is built on the proposition that leaders matter a great deal and followers hardly at all.   After reading this book this seems to be very true, I will try to prove this in the next few sections of this paper.

Barbara’s Definition of Followers

As stated by Kellerman: I define followers according to their rank: They are low in the hierarchy and have less power, authority, and influence than their superiors. They generally go along to get along, particularly with those in higher positions. In the workplace, they may comply so as not to put money or stature at risk. In the community, they may comply to preserve collective stability and security—or simply because it’s the easiest thing to do (Kellerman, 2007).

Types of Followers

 Kellerman divides followers into five different types, according to where they fall along the contain him that ranges from stealing and doing absolutely nothing on the one and to being passionate committed and deeply involved on the other hand. The five types are isolate, bystander, participant, activists, and diehard (Kellerman, 2008).

 Isolates are completely detached. They do not care about their leaders, or know anything about them, or respond to them in anyway. Their alienation is, nevertheless, of consequence. By default nine nothing and doing nothing, isolates strengthen still further leaders who already have the upper hand (Kellerman, 2008).  Isolates are most likely to be found in large companies, where they can easily disappear in the maze of cubicles, offices, departments, and divisions. Their attitudes and behaviors attract little or no notice from those at the top levels of the organization as long as they do their jobs, even if only marginally well and with zero enthusiasm (Kellerman, 2007).

 Bystanders observe but do not participate. They make a deliberate decision to stand aside, to disengage from their leaders and from whatever is the group dynamic. This withdrawal is, in effect, a declaration of neutrality that amounts to tactic support for whoever and whatever constitutes the status quo (Kellerman, 2008).  Like isolates, bystanders can drag down the rest of the group or organization. But unlike isolates, they are perfectly aware of what is going on around them; they just choose not to take the time, the trouble, or, to be fair, sometimes the risk to get involved (Kellerman, 2007).

 Participants are in some way engaged. They clearly favor their leaders and the group and organization of which they are members, or they are clearly opposed. In either case, they care enough to put their money where their mouth is, to invest some of what they have to try to have an impact (Kellerman, 2008).  When participants support their leaders and managers, they are highly coveted. They are the fuel that drives the engine. In the workplace, for instance, they can make effective junior partners. When they disapprove of their leaders and managers, however, or when they act as independent agents, the situation gets more complicated (Kellerman, 2007).

Activist feel strong about their leaders and they act accordingly. They are eager, energetic, and engaged. Because they are heavily invested in people and process, they work hard either on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them (Kellerman, 2008).  Activists who strongly support their leaders and managers can be important allies, whether they are direct or indirect reports. Activists are not necessarily high in number, though, if only because their level of commitment demands an expense of time and energy that most people find difficult to sustain (Kellerman, 2007).

 Diehards are as their name implies, prepare to die if necessary for their cause, whether an individual, or an idea, or both. Diehards are deeply devoted to their leaders, and are ready to remove them from position of power, authority, and influence by any means necessary. In either case, diehards are defined by their dedication, including their willingness to risk life and limb (Kellerman, 2008). Being a diehard is all consuming. It is who you are. It determines what you do.  Diehard followers are rare; their all-encompassing commitment means they emerge only in those situations that are dire or close to it. They can be either a strong asset to their leaders or managers or a dangerous liability (Kellerman, 2007).