Kelley’s article was extremely interesting to me. Throughout his piece he introduces this frequently overlooked idea of follower agency. Usually in assessing the success of the group, much of it is chalked up to the leadership ability of the group’s leader, or how well they delegated power–little attention ever paid to the people that actually make it happen.
Kelly’s distinguishment between all the types of followers, as opposed to categorizing them all as merely followers, suggests that closer attention to be paid to the followers, as many of them are not just “yes men”, and should not be objectified.
I also think it is interesting how he discusses what makes a follower effective, and how in that discussion he mentions the bank that thrived without leaders and relied solely on follower responsibility. This makes me question the creation and existence of leadership as a whole. There is this idea that tasks are more likely to be completed if there is a leader in charge, but where and how did this become adopted as a truth? And how does this impact both people’s desire to work and their work ethic? Does having a leader actually facilitate a task’s successfulness? Or does it actually hinder it?
I definitely agree with your questioning. I do agree that it is not the best to ignore the followers as frequently as we do. There is a lot to learn about a leader by investigating where their followers come from and how they connect to the leader as well as whether or not the presence of the leaders actually more or less beneficial to the group.
I also liked how Kelley described what makes a follower effective, and I thought it was interesting that he said we assume that leadership is something that can be taught, but following is something that everyone just knows how to do, which isn’t really true.
You bring up an interesting point. But I believe that leaders have a reason and a function just as important as the followers. Ironically, however, a leader cannot a leader without followers and followers wouldn’t be followers without a leader, but I believe that the leader help place structure and a goal for the group as a whole.
I think it depends on whether the leader is good or bad. A leader definitely affects its followers, but most of the time we assume the leader would be good therefore praising them for positive accomplishments and blaming the followers for bad work espacieally in the workplace.
What I didn’t consider however is the insight the writer does give us on followers. When he was defining them I did not think much of that, but distinguishing types of followers definitely helps show or highlight their importance.
sorry i put this comment in the wrong place