The relationship between leadership and followership

Leadership is a person or group of people who have taken on the position of assisting others through motivation, good decision making, and a strong commitment to promoting change. Leaders are considered as one of the key success of management of organizations and companies. While establishing goals, an effective leader addresses clear direction, delegates their team against achievement, and leads by exemplar. Leadership and motivation styles vary from individual to individual, it is essential for managers to know and understand leadership, and particular how leadership affects countries and the workplace. However, followers are just as important, without followers there would be no leaders.

Leadership has changed a great deal over time. The historical views of leadership differ dramatically from the views of modern times. In the past, leaders were seen as powerful and authoritative. Historical leaders were usually dictators, kings, prophets, or priests. They were not any average person and no one could learn to be a leader, it was an innate characteristic. Almost all historical leaders were male as well. They were rulers and used force and manipulation to get their point across and to get individuals to follow them.

Historically leadership began with the trait approach. This approach is what brought about the theory that leaders were born and never made. Another name for this approach is the great man theory. Much of the research about the trait approach was conducted in the 1930’s, 40’s, and 50’s. This theory did not look at the impact that situations may have on leadership, only traits. There were no empirical findings from the trait approach so the research ultimately ended in the 1950’s (Barnett, 2003).

    Modern leaders are very different from historical leaders. Over the years, a great deal of research and scientific studies were conducted. Through that research, individuals’ views of leadership have changed and evolved. While there is still debate, the universal view is not that leadership is inherited. People have come to think that leadership is taught and some people even believe that all individuals possess the potential to be a leader.

    After the trait, theory proved an ineffective way to determine who would be an effective leader researchers began to look at the behaviors of a leader rather than the traits. Most of that research was done in the 1940’s and 50’s. The behavioral theory began to look at what leaders actually do instead of just looking at their inborn traits and characteristics. The behaviors of effective leaders are different from the behaviors of ineffective leaders. Two major classes of leadership behavior are relationship-oriented behavior and task-oriented behavior. This theory put into motion the thought that leaders are created and a person can learn to be a leader. This theory also put leadership development into action. 

    In the 1960’s and 70’s another leadership theory was introduced, the contingency theory. This theory put forth the idea that factors unique to each situation determine whether specific leader characteristics and behaviors will be effective. In essence, this theory states that a leadership style that works well in one place may not be effective in another. How a leader performs is contingent on their situation and placement rather than just their style.

    In the 1970’s and 80’s even more research was being conducted and through that emerged both the theories of leader-member exchange and charismatic leadership. The leader-member exchange theory states that leaders form high-quality relationships with some of their employees but not others. The quality of those relationships can lead to many different outcomes in the workplace because people are being treated differently. Charismatic leadership theory proposes that effective leaders inspire their employees to commit themselves to goals by communicating a vision, displaying charismatic behavior, and setting a powerful personal example.

    In light of the research that formed the modern views of leadership, followership came into the forefront. My first thought when I think of being a follower is negative. I think that most people automatically think negative when they hear of the word follower. In the beginning, I pictured an individual who had no sense of self-worth who goes along with what anyone says; however, is not the case.

There is a clear relationship, which takes place between leaders and followers, and the dynamic, which forms the relationship, is essential to the function of both parties. Without followers, leaders would not exist. Leaders need their followers and they need the respect of their followers as well. A leader could have many followers or subordinates in the workplace but if the leader is not respected or accepted that means nothing. According to Gardner (1987) a leader “can be given subordinates, but they cannot be given a following. A following must be earned.” Leaders and followers must be able to collaborate and work together. It is important for leaders to assist their followers in independent thinking and judgments so that they are able to contribute to the workplace effectively. A leader sees possibilities in individuals and figures out what it takes to motivate them.

Aside from the relationship that is essential between leaders and followers there are also people who are considered good followers. According to Kelley (1988), many roles are attributed to an effective follower. Followers are able to think critically and think both inside and outside the box. They are able to manage themselves when they are called upon to do so and they show incredible commitment to the job. Many organizations are cultivating effective followers by instituting training programs and leaderless environments. Overall, a follower is not just a mindless drone who does whatever they are told to do. Effective followers are not only necessary, but also essential, to the functioning of any organization.

There is a clear relationship between leadership and followership and the differences between the two are relatively clear. The differences between leaders and managers are not quite as clear. Ideally, a manager can also be a leader as well. Managers are thought to be authoritative and transactional while leaders are charismatic and transformational. Some qualities that are attributed to managers that they are reactive, use routine, are tactical, and are controlling. Qualities that are attributed to leaders are that they use strategy, have a vision, are passionate, and are proactive. Managers seek stability while leaders seek change. While some attributes between the two are interchangeable, the main differences are the ways in which they handle situations. According to Pascale (1990), “Managers do things right, while leaders do the right thing.”

As mentioned, managers are thought to be transactional. Transactional and transformational leadership are two more types of leadership styles. Transactional leaders use a system of reward and punishment. The chain of command is clear and employees are expected to do what they are told. There is also a clear structure in place as well as a system for disciplinary action. Transactional leadership is based on contingency where rewards or punishments are contingent on the performance of the employee or subordinate. Subordinates are usually responsible for their own work and they are held personally responsible for anything that may go wrong even if they did not have the proper resources to carry out the task.

Transformational leadership is almost the opposite of transactional. A transformational leader creates trust within their organization and with their employees. They give a sense of energy and enthusiasm to the workplace. This type of leader is caring and not only cares about the bottom line but also about the individual and their success. They have a vision and take the time for others to see that vision as well. While maintaining focus on their primary objectives, leaders must be agreeing enough to listen to other people’s opinions, and ideas. The debate over whether leadership is inherited or learned has been going on for a long time; many people have taken a stand on this topic, and are firm in their beliefs. One view is that we are born with the characteristics to be a leader. People are not made into leaders or taught to be leaders, they just are leaders. They were born with the skills and abilities to lead. The other view is that leadership can be learned. This view believes that with the proper tools, education, and discipline anyone can learn to be a leader.

According to Resnick (2003), leaders must be able to create a vision, build alignment, and effect deployment. He claims that not all individuals are able to achieve all of those things and become leaders. He further states that there are two main reasons why an individual may not possess the qualities of a leader. The first reason comes from our DNA. We are all born with capabilities and inherent characteristics and at some point in our life; some of our skills may develop to the limit of our potential. Some people may be more intuitive then others or some individuals may be extreme extroverts. Those characteristics influence a person to become what type of leader they will be. The second reason is seen as embedded into our character. Our sense of right and wrong, of fairness and justice, and of honesty and integrity is deeply rooted and unlikely to change. Those elements are likely to come from our families, culture, religion, and schooling. There is a chance that an extreme experience in life could affect those elements, but overall they usually stay the same.

Some individuals, however, believe that anyone can be molded into a leader. Mohr (2000) believes that some of the greatest leaders were created and molded into leaders that they eventually became. Effective and strong leaders consist of government, military, and corporate CEO’s, which must be strong enough to get the job complete. Some of those leaders were Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King, Ronald Reagan, and Sam Walton of Wal-Mart. They are considered “educated leaders” and became great leaders through hard work, vision, and a laid out plan to succeed. With the proper training, anyone in the business world can become a great leader. Leadership balances strong, forcefulness with accommodation to achieve successful outcomes.

    There are many issues surrounding leadership, especially in recent times. I believe that America has become bitter about leadership. Much like the dictators and authoritarians of the past, we have come to fear and not trust our leaders. Many people feel let down by our recent leaders. While we hold on to the hope that things will soon get better, the fact that we are in a very bad situation due to poor leadership is very apparent and still in the forefront.

    I believe that the crisis in leadership stems from many areas. The most apparent is the businesspersons who build people’s trust in them only to rob them blind. One of the most recent cases of that is the 50 billion dollar fraud case of Bernard Madoff. Many people, mostly wealthy, put their trust in him and he ripped them off. Another case of that was the entire Enron scandal where so many people lost everything. Those individuals were viewed as powerhouse leaders. People wanted to trust them since they were at the top and promised great things. So many people were let down. The individuals’ did not have to be personally affected by those incidences, the fact that they happened and are still happening makes people wary of trusting anyone in an authority position, especially in business.   

   America is in a crisis due to poor leadership. People are losing their homes, retirement accounts are dwindling, the unemployment rate keeps getting higher, and people are living paycheck to paycheck. Those are just a few of examples of the extreme crisis we are in. Our leaders have taken a part in creating that crisis and have done nothing to remedy it. We talk about a crisis in leadership however; I see it as a crisis in lacking an effective leadership. It may sound the same but I think the two are different. Ineffective leaders did not create the entire crisis in America but they have done little to help it either. I think there is a crisis in leadership but I think our leaders are in crisis as well.

   I believe there will always be a crisis in leadership, even if the government was liked and the economy was not in a recession, I think the answer would still be yes. We live in an imperfect world and there are no perfect people. There will always be someone, somewhere who has been let down by a leader, whether it be a global leader or their own leader at their place of employment. Leadership will never be perfect because we, as human beings, will never be perfect. For that reason, alone I believe there will always be some sort of crisis in leadership.

I believe that leadership can be both inherited and learned. I think that many people are born to be leaders. Their personalities are mapped out in a way that they just happen to possess all of the qualities of a great leader. I do not believe, however, that all people who are born to be leaders actually realize that potential. Their environment or upbringing, just to name a few, could stifle that potential and they may become followers after all. On the other hand, I think that people can learn to be leaders, but I do not think this applies to everyone. It is not universal. I do not agree with the notion that every person can be taught to be a leader. I feel as though some people just do not fit into the leadership personality type or they are so comfortable not taking the role of leader that they cannot learn any other way.