Week 3: Followership

Ever since leadership became a large part of my life, followership has been part as well. I am not a natural leader . . . I had to work on developing my skills and being comfortable being seen as a leader. Being a "follower" has situated me better, but not as a passive follower (Smyth). I believe that I have been more of an active or proactive follower (Smyth). I think that part of the reasons I believe I am better as a follower depends on the situation and how knowledgeable I am. I would hope this is the same for a lot of leaders, but I know there are stories in which someone who is "drunk" on power cannot realize that there is someone in a group that has more knowledge about a situation and is willing to step down.

At the 2004 ACPA Convention I presented a session on followership, specifically the Robert Kelley's theory. I have to admit that this was the first time that I learned more about followership and that it is more than being a follower. Throughout the readings for this week, I kept thinking about the qualities that create effective followers (Kelley) and qualities of strong leaders. They are initially the same, which is what many of the authors discussed as well. There are two key differences between being the leader and being an effective follower: (1) wanting to be a leader or not and (2) willingness to step back and allow someone to take the reins.

I personally consider followers to be leaders . . . they just serve a different role. Potter, Rosenbach, and Pittman discussed the concept of a leader-follower partnership. This is seems to be the ideal relationship to accomplish goals. Granted, Potter et al. discussed how the different styles of followers would work better in different situations (Contributor, Subordinate, Politician, Partner).

While reading for this week, I kept thinking about my own experiences as a leader and as a follower. I wonder how my supervisors (current and past) would describe my style of followership. Would I be seen as a partner, or more of a contributor?

For those of you reading, what do you think about when the term "follower" or "followership" is discussed? Do you think of someone who is simply a "yes" person or someone who is more of a partner?

Week 2: Leadership Traditions & New Thinking

These readings provided more questions, then answers. Oh the joys of leadership and the writings about leadership. When I read about the different views of leadership, I can see the reasoning behind much of what is shared. However, there are some many views of leadership that a definition of leadership, or what makes a great leader, seems to near impossible to determine. I like the idea of taking a little bit from one reading and another bit from a second reading until I get enough of what I think as a leader.

THEN, there are the readings that talk about masculine and feminine traits. Are there better traits? The original thoughts of leadership were connected to masculine traits.

Interesting thoughts from the readings:
"The individual looking for a way to become a leader seeks models that reflect her own beliefs and that are found in what they believe to be relevant life histories." (Curry, p. 12)

Gardner shared the tasks of leadership:

1. Envisioning Goals


2. Affirming Values


3. Motivating


4. Managing


5. Achieving Workable Unity


6. Explaining


7. Serving as a Symbol


8. Representing the Group


9. Renewing

"Leadership is not tidy." (Gardner, p. 22)

McCall looked at creative leaders through a different lens: traits that could be seen as negative:
Crafty, Grouchy, Dangerous, Feisty, Contrary, Inconsistent, Evangelistic, Prejudiced, Spineless

"Because the nature of creativity is making opposites fit and frames of reference clash, what we really may be talking about is reactive reflection, broad parochialism, unorthodox conventionalism, and solid illusions." (McCall, p. 120)

"How do those in positions of authority or aspiring to those roles construct a meaningful and manageable identity as leaders? Where do they look for support and inspiration? How do they learn to lead?" (Amey, p. 55). How do they learn to lead?

"Looking at leadership through the lens of a single discipline has not worked" (Rost, p. 182)

I didn't really think much about my own leadership journey during these readings. I saw these as different ways to view leadership and the traits of "good" leadership.