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.
Followers
Published inUncategorized
I agree with you that it was weird seeing similar characteristics between effective leaders and effective followers. However, she does address this a bit and says that effective followers see themselves equal to the leader and do not necessarily see them as equals.
see them as “leaders”*
At first I also questioned how leaders and followers could possibly have the same exact characteristics when they are expected to play such different roles. After Kelley’s explanation I more understood that it is about the role less than the person but, it is still a bit confusing. How can we say these two people, a leader and follower are the same when we recently spoke about temporary inequality and how a subordinate, a follower, must learn from the leader in order to rise to their role.
I also found it interesting that the follower makes a bigger impact to the group than the leader. Even if it is the best leader in the world, if they have bad followers then they will not be able to accomplish their goal.
I have to say I agree with you on how I thought this article was interesting. I thought it was very interesting how the article compared good leaders and good followers. I feel as though I never looked at it in that way.