While reading the Gardner piece, I was especially struck by how important followers are in a leader/follower relationship. To be frank, leaders are more reliant on their followers than the audience is on their leaders. Every decision that a leader makes is supposed to be as reflective as possible of the common good to maximize the most happiness and success of his or her constituency. One of the hardest parts of being a leader is being elected and well-liked in the first place, and even after that initial success, s/he often attempts to be elected again while maintaining high approval ratings. For example, the representative democracy that the United States has is so hugely impacted by leaders attempting to represent as much as possible of their constituency’s wishes. When writing a platform, a candidate is hugely biased by what the public has voted on lately. However, I appreciated how Gardner referred to this relationship as a “two-way conversation” in which social norms hugely impacted how both social groups, the audience and those who represent them, acted and what they expect from one another.
It is interesting to consider how constituencies may act without policy-maker’s influence and the impacts of those around them. Societal pressures definitely lead both parties of this relationship to make different decisions than they would have without these societal expectations.
This dynamic of social norms constricts the type of leaders that can emerge and the ways in which their followers view their leader. Understanding the social norms and context of the situation, as Gardner mentions, is crucial to “earning” your follower base. After all, if the followers cannot see the leader as one of them, someone who shares similar concerns and dreams, they would not cast their support behind that person in the first place.
It is extremely crucial to have the leader be on of their followers. If they are totally left field and your beliefs are right, then nothing is really is going to be accomplished because they are no followers without a common mindset or goal in place.
I also appreciate how Gardner refers to the leader-follower relationship as a “two-way conversation”. It’s clear that leaders are chosen by followers so they depend on followers more than followers depend on leaders but that makes me question who is the true leader. If the leader is following the followers and the followers think they are following the leader, who is in charge? That’s why I like that Gardner refers to it as a conversation.
I really liked how Gardner brought up the idea that a leader would really be nothing without the support base of followers because when we think about leaders, or at least when I do, I tend to just think about that one person and not really broaden it to the followers and that is one of the problems. More people need to realize that things are not just set in stone and meant to be influenced by only one person or thing. What makes a situation unique is all of the factors that play into it.