Gleeful Followership

This is officially your opportunity to admit to the world how much you love ABC's new show "Glee." No? Just me? Well, you're missing out. And as I've watched the characters develop over the first few episodes, styles of followership have become evident. Each eccentric character of the high school glee club fits right into one of Robert Kelley's followership patterns: Tina, a yes person; Rachel, an effective follower; Finn, an effective follower; Kurt, an effective follower; Artie, a sheep; and Mercedes, a very active survivor. I could write a ton on each person's traits that make them a certain type of follower and/or leader, but instead I would like to focus on the choice of followership.

Still early in the season, Rachel has already decided the leadership (Mr. Schuester) wasn't good enough, got him to leave the group, tried to bring in someone else who failed, and then she happily resigned back into her followership role, allowing Mr. Schuester to take back over the club. She tried something, it failed, and then she made the choice to follow Mr. Schuester's lead, while still acting in many ways as a leader for the other students in the group.

Rachel is potentially a very effective follower, but as Kelley writes, "some potentially effective followers derive motivation from ambition. By proving themselves in the follower's role, they hope to win the confidence of peers and superiors and move up the corporate ladder. These people do not see followership as attractive in itself." This accurately describes Rachel's constant fluctuation between being an effective follower, and her tendency to quit when she can't be in charge. There are many times throughout the show that she chooses to follow effectively. Followership is a choice. Each student in the Glee Club has chosen to be a part of something larger than them, and to take the lead of others.

But if we assume that followership is a choice, which I believe it is, what are the circumstances that persuade us to choose what type of follower we will be? Must you try something, like Rachel did, and fail before you are willing to be a follower? Or is there a moment when you weigh the pros and cons of being a follower and you decide what type you'll be? And finally, is it possible for us to create a general definition for what these moments might look like, or is it unique for every individual in every circumstance?

Teacher as a Leader

A person who wants to make something of his life needs to take action. He initiates action when he feels confident about himself. It is important for him to understand what action can produce a desired outcome and to have the confidence that he can actually produce the desired response. This belief that the capability to act in the desired manner exists in him is the result of the relationship he shares with the leader.

When I think of such a relationship, what comes to my mind as the most powerful example is the relationship between a teacher and a student.The impact that a teacher can have on students has always left me amazed. It has led me to believe that a teacher can be a very influential leader in a student's life if the relationship between them is characterized by certain qualities.

Carl Rogers, a famous humanistic psychologist, in his ‘Client-Centered Therapy' used the terms ‘empathy’, 'non-judgmental attitude' and 'unconditional positive regard' to describe the relationship between a therapist and a client. The leadership process between a teacher and a student can be understood in the light of these qualities. The quality of 'empathy' is the building block of the relationship as a student feels understood by his teacher. Pagonis in his article on leadership talks about the importance of the leader being empathetic. When the teacher gives feedback about behavior instead of a judgment, a student drops his defenses and develops insight into his weaknesses.The more non-judgmental the teacher, the better he is able to create an environment of openness and receptivity for maximum learning to take place.Through his empathy and non-judgmental attitude, the teacher helps the student clarify his values and goals in life. Zaleznik also talks about the role of sensitive and intuitive mentors in the development of leadership. Teachers can be these mentors who are not only leaders themselves but who develop their students into leaders too.

Therefore, individuals who find themselves in such a positive relationship with their teachers have great confidence in their ability to make changes, to remain committed to goals, to overcome difficulties, and to exercise control. Those who lack confidence in their own ability to influence things lack the motivation to even make a try.

However, there are many teachers who can have a very negative impact on the student .A teacher who is not empathetic and does not try to look at the student’s perspective, leaves him emotionally untouched. To add to it he may be judgmental and label the student, in which the student might find himself trapped for life. A teacher who treats him worthy of regard based on his performance, may leave him to question his value as a human being.

Who is a better leader during globalization

Our semester went into session one month ago. During our class, I observed that American students always put forth a lot of opinions and questions in class. This is totally different from what students do in China and Taiwan. In the Chinese education system, teachers teach and students listen, so it results in the students lacking the ability of critical thinking who rarely doubt what the teacher teaches. This made me think about how hard it must be for multinational companies to operate effectively in different cultures. They must change their management system and send some competent employees who know how to lead well in different cultural backgrounds, to other branches overseas. In addition, some countries are not encouraging of female employees, which would be harder for women to obtain opportunities to work abroad.
However, Mercer Human Resource Consulting reported in 2006 that employers sent more females on international assignments than male employees. Why? Are women better leaders? According to Robert, Philip, and Sarah (2004), one of reasons is that local people do not suppose that the behavior of expatriate women is not the same as local women. Additionally, women possess a developed sense of cultural awareness and emotional intelligence. Due to their curiosity, they spend more time figuring out cultural differences, so involvement in a different culture is not a big problem for them. Emotional intelligence makes them adept at reading the body language. They are also self-reflective and reflect how their behavior impacts others, as shown by WJM associates. These traits are beneficial for international assignments.
The above finding is a proof that different circumstances generate different leaders. In the past, people worked in order to make a living. Nowadays, the living standards have been greatly enhanced. People do not worry about their life, so they focus more on the social needs relating to their self-esteem and satisfaction. Therefore, a good leader must be able to enhance the self-esteem and self achievement of his team members. A great many firms have launched branches in China, India, and other Asian countries which can give rise to different cross cultural problems. Women are more capable of dealing with such cross cultural problems, because they possess more of the leadership traits needed for meeting these contemporary business challenges.

Power Source Pecking Order - How Influencial is Each Source of Power?

Throughout the last several months, few topics have received more concentrated press coverage than health care reform - and no doubt this coverage is warranted and necessary due to the implications of any such reform - or lack of reform, depending on whom you ask. In the context of our recent discussion of sources of power, it seemed interesting to consider what sorts of power are at play in this debate.

In a recent WSJ opinion article, David Rivkin and Lee Casey describe the Federal mandates that characterize the plans put forward so far for health-care reform as "profoundly unconstitutional." Their article mentions the Baucus Bill specifically as an example, stating that "[under Baucus' plan] people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an 'excise tax' of up to $1,500 per year" (Rivkin and Casey). The objection here has to do with the limits of Congress’ power:

“Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a ‘tax’ that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by ‘taxing’ anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.”

Now my goal in this post is not to promote my personal opinions regarding health-care reform, but to identify and attempt to qualify the sources of power at play. Rivkin and Casey were attorneys for Bush Sr.’s administration and often contribute collaboratively to the National Review. Given their former occupations, I believe it is fair to assign Legitimate Power to Rivkin and Casey, and, depending on your own particular perspective, Expert Power is most likely in order as well. Although they do not currently hold office, I think that high-level attorneys do hold a level of authority granted by their position and thus Legitimate Power is a fair assignment, and no doubt they are entrenched in the matter enough to be called experts.

What is interesting about Legitimate and Expert sources of power is that they have allowed Rivkin and Casey to make a significant impact on the current conversation regarding health-care reform. I am not certain that these two were the first to describe the aforementioned mandates as a unconstitutional taxation, but they have no doubt taken strides towards unifying the argument and presenting it in fairly accessible terms. Furthermore, the conclusion of their argument has taken center stage in the health-care debate. This seems to be the advantage of Legitimate Power and Expert Power – the conclusions drawn by those with such power will not only be accepted – if they are to be accepted at all – but propagated as well, even enthusiastically.

So what about the other sources of power? Again, not taking sides. On Sunday (9/20), President Obama set the record for number of Presidential television appearances in a day by conducting five interviews on major television networks. Obviously President Obama has Legitimate Power, and, in similar terms as was discussed with Rivkin and Casey, it would be unfair to withhold from him the possession of Expert Power. In addition to these sources of power, though, President Obama has made an additional appeal to Referent Power. Using relaxed and at times vernacular phrasing, President Obama’s interviews, in my opinion, have reinforced his face and voice as representative of health-care reform. What is the result of this appeal to Referent Power? Some say his appearances were “too much too late,” to win over any new hearts, but I also think it is important to note that for those who are convinced by his call and plan for reform, the use of Referent Power most likely would solidify previously held beliefs on the matter. Would Referent Power be enough to change the character of a national conversation? I am not sure, but in this case, I am inclined to say not so much as would Legitimate and Expert power.

So where do Coercive and Reward Power play into the debate? I think they likely exist mainly on the fringes, such as with extremists touting the great rewards of... whatever they support; fill in the blank. The same is true of coercive power – extremists would likely tell of the horrible and inevitable consequences of conducting - or not conducting - health-care reform. Granted, no political pundit actually has at his or her disposal any degree of actual reward or coercive power (perhaps that raises another question: Does describing the result of an appeal to power, even if that power is not actually possessed, in some way qualify as an authentic appeal to that power source?), but if these appeals to power sources can be considered legitimate, I think that far left and far right pundits alike are the only few who make any real attempts at them. Do you consider anything that the more mainstream sources have said so far to be an appeal directly to reward or coercive power?

I have just argued for the existence of a hierarchy of Power Sources, but as a final note, I think it is worth mentioning that like so much of what we have discussed in Leadership Theory and Behavior, situation matters. I think there probably is some form of pecking order when it comes to how persuasive certain appeals to sources of power can be, but that order must be inherently dependent on the circumstances of the appeal. Whereas Legitimate and Expert Power may afford the greatest influence in the health-care reform debate, another situation, even another political issue, would no doubt call for an appeal to one or several of the other sources of power.

Gridiron Greatness Is Due To Effective Leadership/Followership

After watching a round of college football on Saturday (being devastated that my alma mater suffered an upset loss) and browsing through the upcoming readings, I thought what better model of leadership through followership is there than football? Football brings individuals together to achieve a common goal by fostering perseverance, a strong work ethic and instilling mental toughness. The sport cultivates a culture of leadership by forming a troupe of effective followers. A coach must prepare and give his team all the tools necessary in order to achieve success. Outlining a vision and getting a team to embrace this work strategy is a crucial component of a coach’s success. An effective coach must also embody aspects of servant leadership through building a strong network of players and giving them priority in his work. However, this type of followership in football is not purely blind obedience but rather players must take what they learn and adapt it to each of their different situations when game time rolls around. Flexibility in following a plan and adaptability in the face of adversity are critical attributes for a successful football team. This too can be said of any leadership-followership institution.  Many college football teams across the country utilize a “no-huddle” offense which attempts to manipulate the defense by throwing them off balance. While the quarterback and other receivers are interpreting signals from their coaches on the sideline, ultimately the quarterback must make the decision on what play must be called after he quickly analyzes the defensive formation. In this situation, leadership responsibility is delegated to a follower. In the article by Joseph Rost, the author writes that followers can become leaders and leaders can become followers (Rost 191). At any point in the game any player can take on the responsibility of being a leader such as a linebacker calling out defensive adjustments. Rost continues that “followers do not do followership but rather leaders and followers do leadership” (Rost 192). Coaches and players are dependent upon each other and must form a cohesive relationship in order to win.

            Football viewed through the lens of a distributed perspective on leadership can portray hierarchical levels involving the head coach, position coaches, and players. John Spillane specifies that distributed leadership is about the practice rather than the leaders, leadership roles or leadership functions (Spillane 2). This perspective is defined by the interactions that individuals have with each other rather than just analyzing the actions of the leader. In football, the head coach delegates leadership to his various position coaches. These position coaches work with their respective players preparing them to become the leaders on the field. As summarized by Spillane, this “collective distribution” allows the head coach to effectively prepare his team by delegating authority to others who work separately but interdependently (Spillane 6).

            When a football program has a losing season, does this necessarily mean the team is composed of ineffective followers? If a team continually loses, this must surely mean to some extent that the athletes and even assistant coaches have not fully embraced the head coaches vision and have failed to act on it. This raises the question is a leader or a follower responsible for failure of an organization? Does an effective leader always produce success and does an ineffective leader always fail? Does this explain the difference between the leadership of Urban Meyer and Charlie Weiss?

(Go U NU!)

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.