Month: October 2019

Reading this article was very interesting to me, I find it intriguing how Zinn exposes or tries to explain history from the point of view of those who have never gotten the chance to tell their story. Starting off, Zinn challenges the story of slavery itself and instead of painting it racially, the way we have all been told, he explains that the country and its greatness has been built on the backs of slaves. Capitalism itself has systematically kept African Americans down and they are in fact the ones who built it up. Further, Zinn dives in-depth into the horrors of slavery and tells the story of a slave rebellion which led to the deaths of 55 white slave owners. This ended up prompting worse treatment of slaves because white masters wanted to discourage any resistance in the future.

In terms of leadership, however, one part that stuck out to me was the section about Abraham lincoln. “Lincoln could skillfully blend the interests of the very rich and the interests of the black at a moment in history where these interests met.” This reminds me of MLK and his ability to appeal to not only African Americans but also White liberals and ultimately this skill is something that tends to be very useful. In the history of America, the larger the audience a speaker can represent, the more successful they are in the long run and they tend to be more influential. Also, it says that Lincoln did not denounce the fugitive slave law because he knew to pick and choose his battles. He knew that he was an on a thin line that connected his two audiences and it would be destructive for him to anger one group if he really wanted progress.

1 Comment

I thought this week’s readings were extremely interesting. Zinn talks about the abolition movement before and during the Civil War. In the 1820s and 1830s, there were several slave rebellion attempts that were unsuccessful and led to the execution of those involved, which was supported by the federal government. These rebellions caused tension within the abolitionist movement because some moderates thought that the rebellions actually set back the cause of emancipation. I thought it was interesting that poor whites were paid by plantation owners to oversee slaves while they worked and prevent them from running away. This reminded me of the Miller reading on domination and subordination. Although the circumstances of poor whites were not at all the same as slavery, they were in a position of inferiority relative to the wealthy. Overseeing slaves allowed them to act as the dominant group.

The article also mentions that Lincoln only began explicitly advocating against slavery once abolition became in his political interest. He even refused to denounce the Fugitive Slave Law and argued that the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution prevented the federal government from outlawing slavery in the states. He also did not believe that black and white people were equal and that freed slaves should be sent back to Africa. While I did not know this before, I actually wasn’t that surprised to learn that Lincoln held these views, because it seems like every major historical figure has done or said extremely problematic things that we never hear about.

Something that also stood out to me in both articles was the reluctance of the government to make any real change until there was some other political or economic reason for it. For example, President Truman wanted to address civil rights issues in order to maintain a good appearance on the international stage. It makes me think that in order to make progress as a society, we cannot only rely on elected leaders.

Leave a Comment

In both of these articles, the author provided a chronological account of the black struggle for equality. In the first Chapter, Slavery without Submission, Emancipation without Freedom, we learned about the political and cultural implications of the Emancipation of 1863, and the events leading up to it and its aftermath. I think its interesting how white abolitionists recieved far more attention and publicity than blacks during the push for emancipation. In a nation where whites dominated the media, the economy, and politics (in a formal institutional sense at least), the author proves how whites had the last say on every matter, and if societal change was going to happen, it could only be done on the terms set by white men. In the following chapter, we look at a much more recent history of the struggle for equality in the 1960s and 70s with the civil rights movement, comparing ideologies of Malcolm X and MLK, and the different cultural practices that were used to express the African American experience through poetry and music. Both of these chapters gave a fundamental outline of leadership tatics and ideologies among black leaders who have been elevated to the icon status such as Du Bois, Tubman, MLK, Malcolm X, and Frederick Douglass.

Leadership and politics has long been institutionalized to systematically discriminate people of color. This is old news and unfortunately is such a complicated problem that it likely can’t be solved in one lifetime or generation. One of the issues that I have read a lot about that the second chapter did not discuss was Nixon’s War on Drugs. I was particularly disturbed when I read that John Ehrlichman, one of Nixon’s top domestic policy advisers, stepped forward and admitted the War on Drugs was an attempt to reverse legislative progress made by the Civil Rights Movement. Heavy decriminalization of heroine and crack cocaine- not the refined powder cocaine that is snorted and is typically more expensive and found in wealthier communities- made the incarceration rate of African Americans sky rocket in the 1970s and broke up families, communities, and neighborhoods. This distinction for the punishment between crack cocaine and powder cocaine is extremely important since one form of the drug was heavily criminalized while police did not arrest many for using the other. This high incarceration rate, many argue, is part of using prison labor as black slave labor, since the 13th amendment does not abolish slave labor for prisoners. FDR’s beginning of the redlining practices, Nixon’s War on Drugs, Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill are all just some examples of how the effects of the slave culture and the desire to profit off of black labor and misfortune has carried into 20th and 21st century politics. Leadership has a big impact on the politics behind these events, and its safe to say we have been missing the effective followers we need in bureaucracy and congress that will begin to fight this system of inequality.

Leave a Comment

In the reading Slavery Without Submission, Emancipation Without Freedom the author wrote about the reasons behind slavery and its beneficiaries before and after emancipation. A quote that I found interesting was “Thus, while the ending of slavery led tp reconstruction of the national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction, but a safe one-in fact, a profitable one” (pg 172). In other words, although the emancipation of slaves did happen, major change about race in the smallest scale to the largest one in politics did not happen. It is described as safe and profitable, meaning that emancipation, in reality, was done not because of new ideals of equality in the United Staes, rather it does one still rooted in bigotry and profits like it was in its genesis. 

Today we still have issues that are rooted in racism, homophobia, and hatefulness. Some examples include abortion laws, equal pay in regards to sex, and gay rights. And although there have been political changes that allow same-sex marriage, allow abortions, and declare us equal, why has our reconstruction not been radical? We continue to let history replay itself in different forms, and lack leadership is pivotal change unless it is coming from a higher power like slavery with Lincoln. In Chicago, public school teachers have been on strike for a week and still, haven’t received a fair contract, with the political system and even more general systems in place, how can the people cause change without relying on political officials?

1 Comment

One immediate lesson that I took away from this reading is that it is truly the BEST move to do something you love as a job. Because, while I was reading this, all I was imagining were sales jobs and marketing and it kind of made me want to cry. In a job that one doesn’t like, of course you’ll be a sheep! You don’t care to do more, you don’t care to know more, and you’ll only do what’s mandatory.

When I changed lenses though, I imagined a job I liked. Like publishing or editing or something. That’s something I would work to get better at. Go to workshops, go to readings, read, read, and read. Because my values and my interests would line up with my job. Of course, the reading seemed… almost too peachy to me. Work is work, granted I’ve never had a job outside of being a barista (which sucks), but I’ve heard from friends and family that there are always gonna be days you just have to grind through.

Finally, I want to say that I really love the idea of redefining our notions of leaders and followers. Followers SHOULD see themselves as equals to their leaders in the workplace, and if the leader expects anything else… they have a complex! I also really appreciated that the author said an effective follower and a leader share many of the same qualities, as they should. Yet they do mention that leaders get paid more, they’re celebrated more, it’s viewed as better. Could that possibly change? Would people still want to lead if the pay was the same? Maybe then only people who WANTED to lead would.

3 Comments

In this article Kelley explains that the followers are just as or more important than leaders are. Towards the beginning Kelley says “Organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead, but partly also on the basis of how well their followers follow.” I think this quote sums it up pretty well. I feel like we always talk about what traits make someone a good leader, but I thought it was interesting how this article touched on what it takes to be a good follower as well. Kelley says all followers are not automatically effective ones. An effective follower has things like intelligence, and active, enthusiastic participation. These things can make a follower more valuable than another.

I also thought it was interesting that the traits you need to be considered a good follower, are similar to those of a great leader. Kelley says, “Effective followers are credible, honest, and courageous.” Usually it is the leader who is described as either “honest” or “courageous,” so it is interesting to see it used to describe what an effective follower is. I think the way Kelley describes good followers sounds similar to servant leadership. As a follower you make sacrifices and put in hard work but still are not recognized as the head of whatever the cause may be.

5 Comments

I really enjoyed this article because it explored a concept that I had not thought about before: how to be an effective follower. This is important because for a leader to be effective and held accountable, his/her followers must contribute to the company or cause and hold them accountable. In order to be an effective follower, one must be active and driven to help the leader succeed and independent in order to hold them accountable.

On the other hand, if followers are passive and unmotivated, the leader can easily become overconfident, manipulative and will overall become unsuccessful. These ineffective followers could easily disband or cause a company or organization to fail. In general, a leader is fully reliant on effective followers in order to support them and allow them to gain recognition.

3 Comments

Robert Kelly’s article “In Praise of Followers” describes the different types of followers there are while highlighting the importance of the follower itself. This whole semester I’ve been wondering if we were ever going to touch on the role of the followers so I’m glad we finally did but I am surprised by what was said. I understand that there are different types of followers and that effective followers are the best but I wonder why effective followers wouldn’t just become leaders. The qualities of being an effective leader correspond with the qualities of being a good leader so why not just lead? The article even says “Self-confident followers see colleagues as allies and leaders as equals.” so if they see themselves as equals does that mean that they think of themselves as leaders? I also wonder if you got a group of people who were effective followers and had them do something without a leader, would they still perform effectively? Do they need a leader?

 

Leave a Comment

During the course of this article it talks and preaches the idea that most of us are not leaders in fact majority of our population is followers. In the article it expresses an opinion saying, “So followership dominates our love and organizations, but not our thinking,  because our preoccupation with leadership keeps us from considering the nature and the importance of the follower.” This brought me to the Idea of “groupthink” a little bit because we are all filled with an idea or an opinion of the leader whether that be negative or positive. So in return we are all opinionated on how to lead and most people will sit back and reflect on how much better that leader could be doing meanwhile they aren’t doing anything about the situation but criticizing.

 

The article more stresses on the component of how to be a good follower. TO be a good follower one must be intelligent, in order to attain the information from the follower, and enthusiastic, and reliant for participation. Otherwise, the leader gets no reaction on how good or bad they are performing. Also in the artcicle it mentions how even when we are in a leadership position we are still following because for every committee we chair, there are several other members.

3 Comments

In “In Praise of Followers” Robert Kelley talks about the different types of followers there are and he also talks about the importance of having these followers follow you. He talks about how followers guide and influence the success of the leader rather than all the work being done by the leader themselves. His main argument is that the followers are just as important, if not, more important than the leader that they support.

I agree with the way that he categorized the followers into five major groups. The sheep, yes people, survivors, alienated followers, and effective followers. It reminds me of some of the followers that follow our president in today’s society. There are the people who don’t like him but accept him as our president, the sheep. There are the effective followers who actively commit themselves to supporting his policies and views. Alienated followers who think about the policies he implements but they  don’t actively carry out their role or support. Survivors who just accept him as a president rather than having no president. The yes people see him making policies and believe he is doing his job. All of the different followers are prevalent in today’s society which I found interesting.

2 Comments

Robert Kelley’s article “In Praise of Followers” discusses the qualities a good follower has, specifically in a business setting. What I struggled with most in reading this article is that in a way, the best followers are good leaders. Their commitment to play their role to the best of their ability motivates their colleagues, and their bosses trust them to delegate responsibility.

In high school, I read a book called Good to Great by Jim Collins for a capitalism class. In this book, Collins points out that in order for a business to go from good to great, you need to get “the right people on the bus.” Collins’ beliefs are in line with Kelley’s in that followers are just as, if not more important than the leaders, and the followers Collins describes fit the same description as Kelley’s “effective followers.”

One thing that surprised me in this article was how different followers could have different motivations. Kelley writes how some followers fully embrace the role of a follower, and find virtue in this role. They recognize that being someone has to be a team player, and they take satisfaction in “helping further a cause, an idea, a product, a service, or…a person.” This motivation can be categorized as intrinsic. Kelley then argues that being motivated by extrinsic forces like moving up the totem pole of a company are just as valid. At first, I found these extrinsic motivators to be less intrinsic, but I realized this evaluation was unfair. If a person has ambition to move up in the company, they won’t be able to do that by trying outshine coworkers at point possible. They way someone moves up is by doing everything right with 100% effort. In other words, being an effective follower is the best way to move up in a company.

3 Comments

Kelley’s article explains and elaborates on the thought that “we tend to lose sight of the people these leaders will lead”. The article does a good job on highlighting the importance of followers and how vital they are to a groups success.

Something that stuck out to me in the article is that essentially, everyone is a follower unless they have achieved a leadership position like a CEO. In many cases, one might be a leader of a certain group. However, they serve as a follower to another group. Many people strive to climb the corporate ladder, but wouldn’t that be toxic towards the groups success. If someone is focused on how to create greater success for themselves, rather than focusing on the group task at hand, wouldn’t that create negative side effects to productivity?

Another point that was interesting was that “self-confident followers see colleagues as allies and leaders as equals”. After reading this, it also made me question why the follower doesn’t desire a leadership role if they view themselves as equals. Or rather that the follower uses this tactic for self-confidence in order to be more successful as a follower for the group which is also practical.

5 Comments

In the article “In Praise of Followers” Robert Kelley discusses and outlines the different types of followers, alienated, effective, sheep, survivors, etc. He outlines what each follower types motivations are and discuss how impactful or not impactful they are when following. Kelley also discusses the traits and qualities of a leader and outlines how a leader can cultivate effective followers. Kelley’s main argument throughout the article is the fact that people greatly overlook the follower role and lose out on maximizing productivity when not promoting effective followership. This comes back to the idea that in any situation the followers are just as, if not more, important than the leaders.

 

I find that Kelley makes a great point about people being effective followers only because they think that if they succeed and gain the trust of their peers then they will move up the corporate ladder. I find that especially in corporate settings people are always looking to get promoted and to not be a follower anymore. This seems like a positive feedback loop, because if you are moving up the corporate ladder, you will still be a subordinate to someone; it is very rare to become the CEO and have no boss.

 

3 Comments

It is commonly thought that organizations and businesses succeed and fail based on how well their leaders are able to lead. Kelley states that this success/fail rate is also dependent on how well followers are able to follow. Without having followers, or in the case of a boss employees, a leader is nothing. It is hard to enact change if you do not have any support behind you or run a business if you have no one working for you. I found the experiment about the commercial bank very interesting and posed many questions to answer about the leader/follower relationship. There was a bank on the east coast that was on the verge of being shut down and the head of the department had set up his employees to work without a leader to take responsibility and accountability for themselves. The employees were able to successfully do this, the department regained control and the bank was saved. This leaves us with the question of if we really need leaders. It is understandable that some cases definitely need one. For example, a whole country without a leader would only result in mass chaos. But maybe in some environments similar to the one above, it would be more beneficial and effective for there to be no leader.

Kelley states that if a person is a leader in one situation, they are most likely going to be a follower in another situation. Even though the head of a department is the boss to their employees the still need to report back to whoever is higher up than them, like a CEO. The role of a boss comes with power, attention, and a bigger paycheck so there are some selfish people in the world who only take the role to reap the benefits rather than help people. Kelley lists four essential qualities an effective follower must have: management, commitment, competence/focus, and courage/honesty/credibility. These are the same essential characteristics an effective leader should have so if they have the same qualities why don’t those effective followers become leaders instead? This shows us that there may or may not be something special about these leaders which causes them to be able to rise up to the role, like the Great Man Theory. Yet, effective followers have the possibility to become leaders if they have these traits.

1 Comment

the article does an excellent job calling out corporations and their client based focus, and their tendencies to search for leaders instead of cultivate them within the company. this philosophy relates to the article by Zinn the perpetuation of “leaders” within the higher class kinda relates to tyranny being perpetuated by the higher class to increase their wealth by oppressing the lower class/ drones. This can be seen today in the Business class overall with ceo’s and board members of large corporations being either a past ceo or on the board of multiple other boards, not letting the workers advance to the same level of success.

the article then proceeds to talk about the effective styles of following and encouraging ways to get followers to become the leaders within the firms. The article pointed out a particularly interesting idea that was a leaderless group could be more productive. However I think this could lead to heightened group think for the group as someone who potentially could mind guard against the group think.

7 Comments

One of the very first things written down in my leadership notes is “a leader cannot lead without followers,” so it’s about time that we read a piece that focused on this very important component of leadership. Robert Kelley’s “In Praise of Followers” turns the camera away from the leaders and focuses on the importance, the types, and qualities of followers. It is very different to think about what makes a good follower because our society makes us push to be in the position of power instead of settling for a subordinate. I did think that the last section on cultivating effective followers was entirely designed for leaders and companies because they want to craft good employees to make their company run more smoothly.

One thing that stood out and kinda bothered me was the choice of examples that Kelley used. In the example for “commitment” and the two examples for “competence and focus,” he used examples of women. Seeing this, I was both excited and a little upset because I love the exemplifying of women doing something right (esp. because one was a woman in STEM yay!), but I also disliked that one of the first articles we have read that does this is exemplifying them as followers. Even though Kelley argues that followership is not a subordinate role, it is still viewed as one in our culture; whether we think it should be or not is a separate question. When he got to the example of “courage,” I became especially unhappy because Kelley used an example of a man but treated him differently than the aforementioned women. He gave this example a name (Jerome LiCari) when the women’s stories were referred to in general terms. Though I enjoyed the content of the article, I found this snub very hard to get over.

2 Comments

I thought this article was really weird. Honestly, it kinda bothered me how similar the characteristics between good followers and good leaders are. They both need initiative and motivation. Though I didn’t like that part, I thought it was really cool how the article said that both leaders and followers switch roles throughout time and that leadership and followership are more roles than people. For example, if a project manager is with the project members, they are a leader. But if that same project manager is with the CEO, they are a follower that is expected to listen to what their superior has to say. I thought that overall this article was another perspective one how leadership works because it points out that without effective followers, a really good leader can’t do anything. The article used Napoleon as an example. What could Napoleon have done without an army? Nothing. Without followers that are committed and willing to work toward the goal, the efficiency, and effectiveness of the leader isn’t as great. I like to think about this idea in a corporate setting. If a member of a development team is being an effective follower, they make the job of the leader easier, therefore, promoting their interests as well as the interests of their leader. If another member is not being an effective follower, like a sheep, they aren’t going to be seen in as much of a positive light and that is going to make the job of the leader harder. It seems like it is all going in a circle almost. An effective follower can lead to a more effective leader who in turn helps create a better environment for the follower.

5 Comments

I loved this article. It broke down the follower types were effective. It is very frequent that people discuss leaders and their effect on their followers. However, we never truly dive into followers enough to get close to categorizing them. I agree with most of the definitions describe throughout the article. There are many ways to be an ineffective follower which can infringe on the impact that leaders are able to have.

Kelley discusses sheep, yes men, alienated and effective followers. He dives into each one providing traits and explanations for their behaviors. It was a fun read because I have definitely experienced the different times of ineffective followers that were mentioned. Often times people place blame mainly on leaders for the effect of their impact not addressing whether or not the results experienced are on the blame of the leaders. Followers and leaders participate in a relationship that both parties have to contribute to. When this is not done properly everyone notices and places blame on the opposite party. When we can effectively observe both leaders and followers and assess productivity in a healthy manner, then we will truly see organizations and governments create waves with much less effort and much more cooperation.

3 Comments

Robert Kelley’s “In Praise of Followers” is a comprehensive account of who a follower is, what followership can look like, and the different types of followers we see in corporate contexts. I enjoyed this change of pace from most of the leadership education I have received thus far because it is so significant to acknowledge the population being led as well as the leaders cultivating the qualities we admire. I felt as if the quote, “Followership is not a person but a role, and what distinguishes followers from leaders is not intelligence or character but the role they play,” (Kelley 10) encapsulates the goals of our education at the Jepson School. Just on the Jepson website, we see leadership defined as “leadership not only as a position but also as a process and a relationship among people,” which relates directly to Kelley’s article. Kelley is arguing that in order to create prosperous organizations and leadership teams, we need the “effective followers”: the “risk-takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers,” (5). I would agree that effective followers help organizations thrive and we must not discredit the driven, passionate individuals who contribute as much– if not more– than the leader.

However, a problem I had with this article is that Kelley ultimately favors extroverts. He fails to acknowledge that not everyone is confident enough to come off right away as courageous, or that racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace can limit individuals from maximizing productivity and success. In my Gender and Work course, we discuss workplace discrimination in-depth, and this article completely disregarded its prevalence. “Followers” in a workplace setting cannot possibly be honest if their employer is not accepting of their sexual orientation, race, gender identity, ability, or nationality, for example. I read an article written by a woman of color who implicitly found herself not speaking up in discussions due to the stereotype of black women being “bossy”; how can she possibly be an “effective follower” if her voice is not recognized? While Kelley acknowledges that effective followers do receive mixed responses from their leaders, he does not mention that a great proportion of people do not meet these criteria if they are introverted or discriminated on the basis of their identity, but does that make them a “less effective” follower?

Anna Marston

Leave a Comment