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?
Be First to Comment