Leaders Need to be Listeners

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090920/COLUMNIST0101/909200362

When I opened up to the local news section of The Tennessean today, this headline caught my eye: “Calling Councilwoman Murray: Please do your job.” This was quite the serious accusation. Here, a public leader was being criticized for not doing what she was elected by her followers to do. I admit that I don’t usually follow the local news since I have yet to consider myself a permanent Nashville resident, so I didn’t have a clue what Councilwoman Murray might have been up to lately. After reading this column, I found myself sharing the author’s frustration. Councilwoman Murray does not respond to any of her phone calls, and her constituents are petitioning for her removal. This leader is ignoring one of the most important skills that one must possess: the skill of listening.

We all took listening tests in elementary school. We listen to our professors and classmates for three hours at a time. We know how to do it. It’s an ability we all have, but some use it far better than others.

Reading this column about a public leader that isn’t listening to her followers got me thinking about how listening plays a vital role in all forms of leadership, even within a company or organization. Listening is one whole side of communication. What good could come from a leader who has a charismatic personality that can enrapture his employees but who doesn’t listen to what they have to say in return? A manager could tell his workers what to do all day long, but what if he ignores their suggestions about ways to make the product better or to present an idea in a more creative way? A leader who can only communicate in one direction can hardly be called an effective leader. In addition to having frustrated employees, the leader will be missing out on a vast source of knowledge and new ideas from his employees. The leader might have the full power of decision-making, but what good is that power without input from others?

In “Leadership Communication Skills,” Hackman and Johnson describe how two-way communication plays a large role in leadership. Not only do they explicitly mention listening as a leadership skill, they explain that taking inputs from others, taking cues from the environment, and soliciting feedback from others makes leaders successful (429). Leaders listen to their followers, and then use these inputs to form their agenda.

Listening will also improve the relationship between leaders and followers, which will help the leader attain more referent power. According to Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy, referent power is what gives the leader the ability to influence those with whom he or she has built a strong relationship. These interpersonal connections can be strengthened through communication, and this means the leader must take time to listen to the followers. With referent power, the leader will then have more loyal followers who share in the leader’s vision (341).

What better way for a public leader like Councilwoman Murray to be a successful leader than to improve her relationship with her constituents. If she listened to them, she would hear their input and recognize what they needed from her as a leader. Had she strengthened her interpersonal connections with them, she would be able to better influence the community with her goals, and she might find more agreeable followers who are willing to accept her plans.

What Geese Know about Leadership

Nothing signals Autumn in New England like the migration of geese south for the winter. The familiar sight of geese (usually of the Canadian variety) in a V formation and the sound of honking is indicative of the season. I believe that this migration may have something to teach us about leadership.

When flying in this V formation, it appears that one goose is the leader, first in the formation. All the other geese flank this apparent “leader goose” on both sides. Why do geese fly like this? From a scientific perspective this leader helps to cut through the air, making the whole gaggle more aerodynamic. Therefore, all the other geese expend less energy while flying.

So at first it appears that geese have it all figured out, the strongest goose will the lead the gaggle. And surely this strong goose was born to be the leader through his strength and size; undoubtedly he (or she) received no training in such a leadership position. Thus one could conclude that the leader goose is born, and not made. If this is true then the geese have answered our question about the origin of leadership skill. However, there is more to this leadership story. It turns out that the leader goose is not always the same.

When the leader goose becomes tired, it falls to the back of the V formation, where it can expend less energy. Another goose then flies up take its place, having more energy saved from being elsewhere in the V formation. So, it turns out that the leadership role in this flying gaggle is shared among several, if not all, of the geese. This begs the question, are all geese born to be leaders or do all geese learn to be leaders?

To frame this in a theoretical sense, one might fit these geese into the three premises of leadership outline by Selznick in Leadership in Administration, 1957. The first “Leadership is a kind of work done to meet the needs of a social situation” is descriptive of what these geese are trying to accomplish in their southward migration. (Leadership 1957) Second, he points to “Leadership is not equivalent to office-holding, high prestige, or authority or decision-making”. (Leadership 1957) Perhaps there is no office that any goose could hold, but the leader of the flying formation isn’t any of this tangible things and the position is shared among other members of the gaggle. And third, “Leadership is dispensable” as for each goose it is, no one goose is the leader every time and perhaps may not be the leader upon landing. (Leadership 1957)

This example of leadership is one of nature and of utility; flying in a formation is necessity as is having several geese share the burden of this physical exertion. But does this avian example translate to humans? Undoubtedly there are several differences between our feathered friends and ourselves, but it did make me think that perhaps this a leadership quality in all of us that if it is necessary, we can all step into a leadership position. Geese are born with the capacity to fly and seemingly, with the capacity to take the lead. Are humans hindered by our ability to think and communicate in a more complicated way? Is all it takes for us to be leaders for us to just do it? - I doubt that any goose thinks much about taking his or her turn.
So I ask you this- do geese know if leaders are born or made?

Photo © NC Wildlife Resources Commission

Who is Ernest Brown? And why should we care?

Last week when I was driving along the intersection of Broadway and West End I stumbled upon this sign. As I was sitting at a red light reading it, a couple of thoughts popped into my head...

1. Who is Ernest Brown?

2. What did Ernest Brown think when he drove to work one day and saw this sign?

3. Whose idea was this?

I could only imagine that Ernest felt like a million bucks as he drove into the parking lot. After stopping in and asking about Ernest I came to find out that he was one of the first African American car salesmen in Tennessee and that he now works in the showroom helping people decipher their owner’s manuals. And it was the CEO that decided to put those words of appreciation up for Ernest.

So this got me thinking…

What should a leader’s role be in appreciating employees? Should they be the ones doing the appreciating or should this task be handed down to someone else altogether? Furthermore, why should we even take time to appreciate and value the work that others do? It is their job after all. I think one of the many challenges today in the workplace is that many people feel undervalued and underappreciated for the amount of time, effort and work that they do. And more often than not these feelings seem to be directly related to job satisfaction. So shouldn’t this be a priority for leaders?

McClelland’s needs theory and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs both talk from different perspectives about what people really “need” to achieve self fulfillment. Even though the need for appreciation isn’t explicitly stated in these theories I think if we read between the lines this need is clearly shown. I imagine all of us can think of a time where we could have really used a word of affirmation from our leader. So why are the simple words, “thank you” or “nice job” missing from many leaders vocabulary? Have we have lost sight of the value of a sincere compliment? In our text DePree states, “Leadership is a position of servanthood…Without understanding the cares, yearnings, and struggles of the human spirit, how could anyone presume to lead a group of people across the street?” (The Attributes of Leadership: A Checklist, 1992) Many times I think we take the term servanthood and servant leader to mean something extreme. But, I think in this case and as mentioned in many other articles this type of servanthood is based more around empathy, appreciation, and empowerment than anything else.

Some of our texts debate the importance of the leader’s role in being a cheerleader for the company. While I don’t think in any way that managers, CEO’s, or any other leaders should get out their pom-poms; I do think that to some extent all employees/followers need to know that their leader believes in them. Showing appreciation is one way that leaders can help their followers and themselves. Once leaders begin to build rapport with their followers their referent power grows. This gives leverage to the leader so that they can more easily motivate and mobilize their followers towards their collective purpose (Power, Influence, and Influence Tactics, 1993). We are all much more likely to follow someone that we believe, believes in us. There is power in followership. Geneen states, “Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and action…So, far as I can see, the best way to inspire people to superior performance is to convince them by everything you do and by your everyday attitude that you are wholeheartedly supporting them” (Leadership, 1998).

This simple, but positive example of a leader appreciating their employee is powerful. In today’s culture of job uncertainty and dissatisfaction it’s important that leaders in society, business, and government take time to appreciate, nurture, and motivate those below them.

After all, there aren’t many Ernest Brown’s of the world that have worked for a company for 44 years.

As leaders and followers, maybe it’s time we all took a good hard look at how we appreciate and value those important to us.

Leaders Can't Ignore Lessons in Leadership

In case you like driving down 21st avenue blindfolded and haven't realized it, we have been deemed the best education school in America by U.S. News and World Report. Who could be surprised by our intelligent, creative, and inspired student body hosted by a faculty of charming, knowledgeable academics? We students seek out challenge and demand success. And for our newest challenge: studying the theory of leadership and the behavior it produces.

What a scientific proposition! The tone of it seems nearly biological. On the face of things - both in word and in deed - we have not received any lecture or read any text regarding how to lead. Our readings have depicted the evolving views of leadership through time, from an original acceptance of Great Man Theory to a nearly opposite view that leadership is a behavior dependent on applying knowledge and skill in the right circumstance. We have begun to discuss whether there is such a thing as a born leader and whether leadership itself can be taught.

Throughout our lectures and readings, I have done my best to internalize the idea that, again, we are learning about leadership and not how to lead. So is it just me or do we all feel a tug from every assignment that as scholars of leadership behavior we ought to nevertheless consider our own leadership abilities? Who could read Zaleznik's Managers and Leaders: Are they Different? and not wish for oneself the regal title of "leader" over the timecard-punching, paper pushing "manager?"

I have come to appreciate and enjoy the dichotomies present throughout so many of our readings. Not only Leader vs. Manager, but Born vs. Made, Theory X vs. Theory Y, the Authority of Position vs. the Authority of Leadership (according to Barnard, these last two are not necessarily opposed but do not always coexist). As I consider each of these elements, I am sensitive to the fact that while I would like to remain objective, I simply cannot read such words without picking sides and thus trying to glean from them a lesson in leadership. In other words, although we study leadership behavior, this behavior is something that we can relate to. We may try to keep an arm's length and study leadership behavior as though we were studying the behavior of a newly discovered creature, yet our innate relationship to the material seems to make such neutrality impossible.

So here we are, a collection of students of varied ages, backgrounds, and programs of study. Yet in class it feels like a room full of leaders. And as hard as we try to remain objective, and as much as this class is not about learning how to lead, I would like to say that I believe many, if not all of us, will learn a thing or two about proper leadership from the underlying lessons in leadership that I feel are undoubtedly present in our readings and lecture.

The Absence of Personal Leadership and the Bystander Effect in Emergency Situations

In March 13, 1964, Catherine "Kitty" Genovese was returning home from work when she was stabbed to death near her home. In actuality, around a dozen people saw or heard part of the attack and a witness did contact the police either during or at the end of the attack. But the original New York Times article sensationalized the crime with the headlines, “Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police”, which prompted an onslaught of criticism and negative stereotypes of how people in large cities have become calloused in large cities. The incident spurred a series of studies by Bibb Latane and John Darley, where they identified a phenomenon known as the “bystander effect”.

Interestingly, in Latane and Darley’s studies, observers are less likely to take action when an emergency occurs if there are other observers around. The greater the number of observers, the less likely one observer will intervene. There are two features of the bystander effect. First, the greater number of people present, the greater the diffusion of responsibility. For example, if a witness was the only person present when a passerby drops to the ground and has a heart attack – the witness would feel compelled to help the passerby. Now, imagine if there were twenty people around when the stranger has a heart attack. The diffusion of responsibility is greater because each person is more likely to think someone else will take action. The sole witness will feel more compelled to help a dying person versus twenty witnesses.

The second feature is a result of social conditioning. In general, people try to act in socially acceptable ways by not over-reacting, especially in an ambiguous situation. Let’s take the same scenario again with the random stranger who is suffering from a myocardial infarction, add some distance between him and the other witnesses, pretend he is mute, and make it really foggy. Suddenly, it is not so easy to predict whether or not witnesses will walk over to check on the person. The situation is not so obvious anymore because witnesses can’t hear him scream or see him too well through the fog and distance. Witnesses cannot tell if the stranger is really having a heart attack or if he is just some man who just tripped and fell. Logically, the only risk the witnesses really would face is to appear too prying in something that might be none of their business. But the small risk of embarrassment is enough for the witnesses not to take action.

Yes, yes. I know it sounds ridiculous to let the mute stranger die of a heart-attack in the fog, somewhere faraway because people might get embarrassed.

What theoretical point(s) or frame(s) does this example bring to mind?

This incident does not make any direct connection to a theoretical point or frame from our class readings. Instead, it makes a case against the idea that a leader may emerge in times of crisis and the absence of personal leadership is more likely to occur if a person’s sense of responsibility was somehow diminished. In Janis Irving’s article on Groupthink, team members isolated themselves from the results of their actions by putting themselves on a higher, impenetrable moral ground. They created this high ground by villainizing others, creating an “us versus them” mentality. In their minds, they did not need to reconsider their actions, they were always right. In Milgram’s experiments, the subjects carried out orders that conflicted with their moral views. One of the factors that allowed them to do this was a separation from the responsibility of the act. The subject transferred the responsibility of his or her decision to the authority figure. With the bystander effect, the responsibility was diffused among a larger group of people, which made it easier for people not to take action. The common theme in these studies is that people are less likely to intervene when there is a way to reduce their connection to their responsibilities, whether if it is by diffusion, transfer, or rationalizing. To create a petri dish for the absence of personal leadership, there must be a way for people not to feel accountable for what happened.

Why is this important?

Not every crisis will produce a leader. There are multiple reasons why a leader does not emerge from a crisis. In Latane and Darley’s studies, it was not the witnesses' apathy but rather a result of the bystander effect. In Milgram’s studies, it was the “dilemma of obedience”. In the Bay of Pigs and Pearl Harbor, it was the pressure of group dynamics. To me, this is important because it can happen in a non-emergency situation but it does not get the same level of visibility. Non-emergency situations don’t leave dead bodies as evidence of the absence of personal leadership. Instead, it may result in less acute but serious examples such as not intervening when you witness another shopper become victim to racial discrimination or obeying a total stranger.

On Religion, Needs, and Leadership

In life, there are many forms of leadership experienced on a daily basis. From the shows we watch to the company we keep, whether aware of it or not, we lead or are led. All of these examples are of significant influence in every person’s life. However, in my experience there is only one example of leadership that spans not only centuries but pervades every niche of society including those aforementioned. This example is religion.

Since the dawn of time, people have searched for a higher power to provide purpose and to aid in satisfying inherent needs such as food, water and shelter. Once these needs were met, humankind looked toward their respective deities to satisfy more abstract needs such as safety, social acceptance, and self-esteem. This postulation is similar to that of the Maslowian theories of motivation proposed in McGregor’s Theory X. Just as the fulfillment of lower ranking needs in an organization brings rise to needs of greater substance and thus reward, man’s self-fulfillment of simplistic needs creates a yearning for a leader to aid in the gratification of those more complex (McGregor 1960).

Initially, this acknowledgement seems of no harm when its truth is, in fact, of great concern for three primary reasons observed in my admittedly short time here on Earth. First, the degree of complication associated with our unfulfilled needs arise as it is the action of man that ultimately allows them into existence. Second, as we depend on man’s ability to maintain integrity to fulfill these needs honestly, we ignore the frailty of the human conscience. Third, similar to Hackman and Johnson’s ideas regarding unethical impression management, the most morally corrupt will shroud their own personal agenda as the will of their espoused deity (Hackman and Johnson 1991).

One example of religion-based leadership with regards to these shortcomings can be seen by looking at the black freedom struggle of the mid-twentieth century through two very different lenses with the same religious base of Christianity. During this time, Martin Luther King Jr, through his charismatic speaking and faith in God, rose to become a prominent leader of the movement by promoting equality through non-violence acts (Carson 1987). Conversely, during this same time period the Ku Klux Klan became well-known by its acts of violence and oppression; claiming it to be the will of the same God. Clearly, the Ku Klux Klan was falsly claiming its actions as just. With this example, it is easy to discern which group worked honestly to aid in the fulfillment of a complex need, in other instances the distinction may not be so easily made.

Religion is indeed the gate keeper of morality and the author of our world’s values. As such, the virtues of religion can keep mankind safe from itself (our only enemy) but only as long as those entrusted with its responsibility maintain a righteous poise. Since this is not always the case, those that choose to follow rather than lead must judiciously watch for those whose motives are less than pure so to keep the fragile virtues of society safe.

The Choice of Leadership

Having graduated from the United States Coast Guard Academy (USCGA) in 2005, I am partially favorable toward the idea that leadership can be taught. That does not necessarily mean that leadership can be learned and applied by the same person to whom it is taught. I think a person must make a decision to internalize what leadership means to him or her before being capable of leading others. Although I've probably written and spoken the word 'leadership' more than I've said my own name, I still cannot make a clear decision as to weather leadership can be learned by just anyone.

The USCGA, the smallest of our nation's federal military academies, provides a four-year Bachelor of Science degree program along with specialized education and training to graduate individuals prepared to serve as commissioned officers and serve the public as leaders of character.

When you first arrive at the academy, you begin what is known as swab-summer. This is a time when senior cadets and commissioned officers train and indoctrinate the new "wanna-be" cadets. You actually are not even considered a cadet or member of the CGA until you complete the seven weeks of training. Throughout this program (equivalent to that of boot-camp for enlisted personnel) we are responsible for learning and reciting the cadet mission of the CGA. Every now and then, whenever a swab-summer cadre wants to hear it, he or she will shout, "Zulu three (or whichever platoon you were a member of), what's the mission?" to which we would reply, "Sir/ma'am, the mission of the United States Coast Guard Academy is to graduate young men and women with sound bodies, stout hearts and alert minds, with a liking for the sea and its lore, with that high sense of honor, loyalty and obedience which goes with trained initiative and leadership; well grounded in seamanship, the sciences and amenities, and strong in the resolve to be worthy of the traditions of commissioned officers in the United States Coast Guard in the service of their country and humanity, sir!" Thus, in the very early stages of my adult education, I was learning that leadership is something that I could learn and would learn before I became a commissioned officer, according to the mission at least. I do actually believe that leadership can be learned, but I believe that learning to be a leader is a choice we make and is a never ending journey.

I was sent home during week 5 of my first swab-summer because of a knee injury but was determined to get back to the CGA where I could learn about this extraordinary concept of leadership. I wanted to be a leader, because I wanted to effect others' lives in a positive way, and I still strive toward that goal. Looking back, however, I realize that my first real experience with leadership involved my willingness to obey authority and my "zone of indifference" of unquestionably accepting orders (Chester Barnard, 1938). This is not how I define leadership today, but that summer (and 3/4) of obedience to authority did teach me to be a follower and revealed traits that I do not want to have as a leader. In a sense, during my four years of training, I was learning to be a leader through experiences, relationships, mistakes, and above all, my willingness to learn to lead.

The topic of leadership was common throughout my four years at the CGA and four years as a commissioned officer. It is an institution and service that emphasizes leadership. We are encouraged to discuss positive and negative leadership characteristics with our peers, but I think a large piece is missing; the direct study of the theories on leadership that we've currently been discussing in our class. I still do not have a concrete definition of what leadership means to me, but I'm closer now to that definition than I've ever been. I agree with people like William Pagonis who says that anyone willing to work hard enough and develop the traits can lead (Leadership in a Combat Zone, 2001). Which traits? I think it is dependent on the situation and the vision of the group and the leader, but that is another topic in itself. However, I also believe some people have a natural ability and/or tendency to lead, without having to work so hard and without having to attend a U.S. military academy.

The CGA prepares cadets to take on roles of great responsibility and leadership and it begins with senior cadets leading and training the junior cadets. However, all of this training and experience does not prove to me that just anyone can learn to be a leader. You must have the desire to lead. Though instructors, especially the commissioned officers and chiefs, help teach cadets about leadership through their own experiences, I think the ability to learn from them is a choice we make. Learning to be a leader seems to be a lifelong commitment that we may choose to experience.

Photo retrieved from:http://www.uscga.edu/default.aspx

An Unreasonable Man

I hope everyone had a great break. I just wanted to share something that I watched over the holidays which reminded me of our leadership class this past fall:

http://www.anunreasonableman.com/

It is a great example of a biographical analysis of leadership. Also the special features component has a video entitled "Profile of a Charismatic Leader" with an interview with Howard Gardner. Lots of information and well worth the watch.

Milgram Redux

Here is an article about the most recent replication of the Milgram experiments

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11274657

Educational leaders required: Blending envisioning with humility

Picture retrieved from:
http://www.peru.info/s_ftomultimedia.aspwAcc=2&HidId=7&Titulo=Ni%F1os%20en%20las%20pampas%20de%20Ayacucho&ImgDesc=

I have to admit that I have been very resistant to political issues and specially politicians’ behavior since I remember. It has been hard to understand how our supposedly servant leaders have tended to pave the way to their own benefit and profit rather than to introduce real education politics that can be at the basis of mending our fragmented society. Our last three Presidents, including the governing one, have been involved in bribery scandals and trial. I have the impression that Greenleaf (1977) himself will find them as perfect examples when the act of lead precedes any kind of act of service.

Consequently, I have been trying to approach to this issue working in the education sector. I have been consistently interested in how different actors interact and build social relationships, and how they handle power relationships. Schools were appealing institutions to observe that. Although the relationships between teachers and the directive team implied tension, I could observe that when the school’s principal assume his or her role in a collaborative approach, he or she was planting the seed of trust to introduce change (Packard, 1998; Nadler, 1990). But when principals assumed that schools were hard to manage due to the continuous conflicts among teachers, they deny their responsibility to intervene.

Pedagogical change was the result of an individual or small group effort in the class setting. But when looking for innovations in the school’s management, the school’s principal was a key piece to generate a shared sense of accomplishment and an optimal climate to work. But he or she will rarely affirm that it was his or her contribution what made things happened, instead the principal will refer the results to everybody’s contribution and commitment with the school and, especially, with enhancing students’ performance (Collins, 2005).

Afterward I worked at a university. It was like a tangled network that was far from the more sophisticated school organization I have ever met and looked very different from the memory I had about it when I was a student and, later on, a teacher assistant. I realized that there was not anything that can be called “the university” – as I used to call it in my former years of student -, there were a multiplicity of universities, determined by who was talking, that is, a teacher or a student, an undergraduate or a graduate student, a syndicated employee or a non-syndicated one, etc. However, this is the place were social capital is reinforced through the efforts of academia, as Brian Heuser (2000) states in his article Academic social cohesion within higher education.

I worked very close to many academics in order to assist them to develop their annual plans. The different departments I worked with were challenging and each one them reclaimed that the university was reluctant to recognize their specific needs about human and financial resources.

When new deans of schools and chairs of departments were elected each three years, the new academic authorities assumed those positions being aware of the implications, even the ones that assume this sort of academic-administrative function. Nonetheless they intended to continue and/or introduce different perspectives about how the academia can do their job better aligned with the institutional goals, I can observe that their qualified reputation as brilliant scholars and professors made this process tough the first two years and then they are almost ready to leave. Surely their perspective about the university has changed but sometimes their energy to face the challenges has also diminished due to a recharged administrative labor with scarce time to think big about their school, department or even the university (Sashkin, 1989).

So I wonder if this situation is probably related to the academic culture related to the cultivation of strong self-images, based on the knowledge acquired and expressed by academic degrees, publications in indexed journal, grants or funds received, and so on. Therefore I wonder if this kind of culture is not dangerous not only for the university’s process of authorities’ succession within universities but also I am worried about the implications in the relationship with the students. 

I do not intend to say that academic culture damages the ethics of younger students, when stimulated to be competitive, self-centered and base their achievements in the academic arena. But I have the feeling that this can be a sort of hidden curriculum with pervasive effects when this former students become active part of the civil society being enrolled in different job positions but due to their focus in their egos, reserve very little time to think big, to identify ways to commit with social change and with improving the education in our country. I am really concerned if this way or being focused on oneself and give little time to think about the organizations we are part of is also at the basis of our permissive behavior about the representatives that lead our country and systematically make it more fragile.

Rise of Followership: Product of an Empowering Leadership

I wrote this post back in October before James and I decided to name our Leadership model as Empowerment. I forgot about this post after composing it, but it did subconsciously spark many ideas for our model...

Since our class discussion on the topic of followership, I have been fascinating by the potential seen in the rise of "the masses," the increase in agency followers have garnered over the last half-century, and some leaders' respect for individuals working in their enterprises. The previous theories of leadership had not attended to the individuals whose roles were to solely execute orders that were delegated from upper levels of "management." The central focus of written texts remained on the main figurehead of the institution, who was commonly praised for his strong personal mastery, charisma, sharp functioning, and ability to reap a high profitability from lower-level workers.

The proposal of followership is freshly appealing because followers are observed and treated more as individuals along the principals of "Theory Y", by McGregor. No longer is the treatment of followers formulated from a pessimistic view that employees are lazy, passive, and disagreeable. The follower, once overshadowed by daunting CEOs became more prominent as some institutions became aware of the power of team work, and reaped powerful results when they allowed workers with practical experience to hold some authority and control over their positions. A removal of some of the leader's authority placed onto her followers vastly changes the leader's outlook of herself, the followers, and the enterprise; and the transformation from an authoritarian approach to a follwership approach requires the leader to limit her exercise on positional power and gravitate towards a respectful relationship with her team.

Followership is a twist in the traditional bureaucracy of how most institutions perceive leadership and casts previously unheard of attention to subordinates in organizational hierarchies, which now are termed "participants," or individuals who are active and engage with the leader to work towards a common cause. It departs from the traditional dominant-subordinate model which is still pervasive in global cultures, in families, gender differences, sexual orientation, and the workplace.

Kelley's "In Praise of Followers", presents the notion that what defines a group of competent followers is no longer a passive obedience, but a "self-reliant participation...in the pursuit of an organizational goal...serv[ing] as team players" (195). This type of follower relies on the skills she internally possesses, even her own leadership skills to further the organization, but even as she is confident and adept, she chooses to take up the position as a follower because it is valued and a vital role to the group. What may come as a surprise to leaders who establish authority in themselves is, that the follower who is placed in the ideal environment can accomplish what leaders cannot. He or she is not bound to conforming to the lowest rung of the hierarchical structure; that is, potential and capability does not wane in the presence of an executive or upper management. Followers who take on an active role in assisting the team towards its goal should be given credit where it is due. Those who have successfully implemented the idea of followership into their leadership models reap the benefits of a thriving, healthy organization.

This notion of followership alters the dynamics of conventional leadership, and Rost's article, "Leaders and Followers Are the People in This Relationship" states that followers and leaders work together in interchangeable roles when it is necessary. Furthermore, "this ability to change places without changing organizational positions gives followers considerable influence and mobility" (192), a quality the traditional leader may not have acquired in his genre of experience. Rost proposes a change in the meaning of "followers," that they are as versatile as being a leader in one situation, as to assuming a follower role in the next project. They are no less competent than the leader, but also demonstrate the ability to work effectively in teams, without the glory and title as leader.

Finally, the leader herself must come to reshape her position, authority, and how she perceives her group members. The relationship represents a symbiotic one, with both the leader and follower relying on each other for survival in competing organizations. She must be the one who draws out the qualities of an active mind, and should go as far as personal understanding of each person according to his or her interests, level of development, and ability contribute to the group. She seeks to encourage advisers among the team rather than yes-men, and halts the behavior fawning subordinates that are quick to obey and execute the plan laid out for them.

But there's more to followership than we first see. The concept itself does not necessarily advocate for the absence of a leadership position, but rather, is contingent upon the leader's initiative to develop this process for his institution. He is the one whom others look to for the atmosphere and tone of the group. It is his advantage to design an environment which facilitates learning and equal collaboration, and seeks to encourage individual involvement. He is a figurehead, but specifically one who can foster this type of followership characteristic on his team. Moreover, he attempts to prolong the life and strengthen members of the organization by allowing followers to gather practical experience in leading smaller groups. This is derived from a leader who acts as a mediator, facilitator, and empowerer, but someone who does not overpower. He must have something to impart initially, then must provide the geographical and intellectual space for followers to gain experience for learning. Thus the process of reciprocity is etched out, as followers gain knowledge to participate and work alongside the leader.