Leadership and the Humanities Class Blog Posts

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

I think this idea is a much needed and very overlooked concept about success in the workplace. I myself have even overlooked it sometimes because it is so easy to just look at the leader of a group and talk about how they are doing and their success but a leader literally is nothing without their followers so it is important to shed light on those that make a leader look good (or bad). I found it interesting the idea of followers that derive their motivation from ambition because it reminds me a lot of servant leadership. Kelley talks about how some workers have the intentions of rising up in the chain of command and in that sense, it is like they were a servant first to their boss, and then they became a boss to someone else.

Kelley also talks about how leadership and followership basically have people of all the same qualities, it is just a matter of what specific role they are playing on that day at that time of analysis that determines if they are in the followership category or the leadership category. Kelley then goes on to talk about ways to implement ways to keep effective followers in different scenarios and while I think they are practical, employees do not always have that perfect balance of qualities mentioned earlier in the article and so putting this ideas into place will most likely show difficulty. I know that it is supposed to be ways to encourage effective followers but it does not mean every group of people will have the right mindset about changes because maybe they think they are already good at what they do.

5 Comments

Writer Robert Kelley, in his article, compared the quality of leadership to the quality of followership. Without an army, a leader is just a person with great ambitions as there is a lack of people to lead. Kelley then goes on to highlight the importance of effective following. Not everyone is mentally or intellectually fit for the tangible role that they play. For instance, a person could hold and live out the career of being a professor by showing up to their scheduled classes and telling students a bunch of information. Yet, that same person who holds the role of professor could lack the ability to teach or give an adequate amount of information in a way for students to comprehend and retain it.    

Kelley suggests that followers are the ones who truly compose leadership. Leaders could hold visions for organizational goals. Followers participate in bringing those goals to life. Because there is more diversity in followership, followers are able to better tap into their individual talents to bring the leader’s, or the head organizer’s, ideas to pass. Furthermore, Kelley ensures that leaders have the potential to become good followers. In the same way that followers (and leaders alike) study leadership, it is not the worse idea for leaders to study followership. I am a firm believer that a great leader knows when to step back and allow others to lead, anyway. This would not just be a form of co-leadership but the ability to step into the role of being a follower.

After reading Kelley’s listed “Qualities of Followers”, could one consider a follower to be a leader of themself, in almost a sense of self-leadership? The abilities to self-manage, to be honest, to be credible, and to focus their efforts for maximum impact all stand out to me as prominent leadership qualities.    

6 Comments

Derek Thompson, a journalist for the Atlantic and the host for the podcast Crazy/Genius, spoke about how advertising companies online succeed in making money and major societal change. He also discussed how ethics online and in journalism can have a more positive impact on the growing negative outcomes of online freedom. Free entertainment companies charge absolutely nothing to their users, yet make billions of dollars more than companies that do charge their users, because they sell their audience to advertising companies. This business model is incredibly profitable, but it has ethical consequences due to the unprecedented fake news, extremism growth, and other unethical internet side effects. Thompson argued that these popular advertisements can occur because fiction outsells nonfiction. An audience is much more keen to pay attention and spend their time on something dramatic or enticing and these types of events are most usually not nonfiction. He believes that without an underlying of ethics, attention gives way to false stories. This alone can undermine journalistic integrity as companies tend to favor making money over not and advertising companies make them their money. This argument brought light to how easily companies allow fake news and other false stories appear to their audience because of their money making processes. Unfortunately, it makes sense that a company that is free of charge that can be so incredibly successful isn’t going to want to put their mode of income in jeopardy. 

Another topic Thompson discussed that I found really interesting was the way online dating has changed society. One major change is that online dating has successfully shown increases in connecting minority populations. People in minority populations are no longer isolated by their surroundings when it comes to meeting a partner. This side of online dating is one I had never considered before and casts a much brighter light onto online dating. This change can be linked to an even more fundamental change online dating has had on how we make important decisions in our lives. Thompson discussed research that shows the internet has almost completely displaced friends and family in the decision making process of, what he called, one of the most important decisions of our lives. This may be good in the sense that it broadens our inner circle and releases us from hometown biases. But, it is fascinating to realize that we no longer rely so much on the people closest to us to find someone to commit to for the rest of our lives. 

Leave a Comment

This lecture covered the process in which feminist have fought for equality in Virginia. She began by explaining the long history of patriarchy and the control that white men had. Shockley emphasized that feminist were not only fighting in the north but in the south regions in the United States. However, with the amount of money that white men and anti-feminist organizations had it was a struggle in the south. The changes she explains came from within Virginia, not from a federal level.

These feminist started to organize marches on the Equal Rights Amendment, reproductive rights, and violence against women. However they ran into problems and conflicts amongst one another. Looking radical or not when addressing legislature was a key argument as many women believed that they appeared too radical. This was the same issue in the civil rights movement (MLK vs. Malcom X). Furthermore, they were not one cohesive group. The process in which they became a cohesive group within Virgina was a process. This process took years as the discussed many of the conflicts at general assemblies. This process compliments the idea of servant leaders as many of the women that came to power in this process were servant leaders.

Leave a Comment

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?

 

5 Comments

I think the author makes an interesting point regarding how many political and social movements are motivated by the rich and powerful.  What makes the American Revolution different than other movements is the dynamic between those same elites and the common people. The article mentioned, “…the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians, for their own purposes. This was not purely deception; it involved, in part, a genuine recognition of lower-class grievances…” (Zinn, 61).  The rich colonists who wanted to get rid of British rule, had to understand the issues all classes faced in order to effectively gain enough support to overthrow the existing government.

The language and aura around the United States’ fight for independence helped to inspire all classes to act against the British.  The elites of cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and New York created a narrative. They painted the British as the main reason for the uneven social structure, temporarily relieving the existing class tension among Americans.  While not completely intentional, much of the language surrounding the revolution painted all Americans as victims of the British, regardless of class, and created an image of equality. Zinn highlights the “All this, the language of popular control over governments, the right of rebellion and revolution, indignation at political tyranny, economic burdens, and military attacks, was the language well suited to unite large numbers of colonists, and persuade even those who had grievances against one another to turn against England.” (Zinn, 72).  The potential of class equality inspired lower and middle class Americans to act against the British.  

While the rich helped to use certain language and rhetoric to inspire lower class colonists to act, they also were heavily fortunate for the demographics in the colonial cities. Zinn mentions how, “Fortunately for the revolutionary movement, the key battles were being fought in the North, and here, in the cities, the colonies had a divided white population; they could win over mechanics, who were a kind of middle class, who had a stake in the fight against England, who faced competition from English manufacturers.” (Zinn, 65).  The inequality among colonists was ignored because the rich deflected the blame towards the British, which made sense to struggling business and workers who were looking for a scapegoat. The language and demographics were very strategically used by the colonial elites in order to inspire lower class Americans to portray the British as the main enemy.

3 Comments

When Americans think of the Revolutionary War we think of fellow Americans taking up arms together to fight off foreign control. However, after reading this article I discovered that there was much more politics involved within the American war. In 17th century America, the disparity of wealth and oppression against the poor was for a lack of better terms at an all-time high. In Boston, for example, the wealthiest individuals (upper 5 %) owned roughly 50% of the assets located in Boston. This enraged the lower class citizens and caused them to riot against the upper-class citizens. With England still having a grasp on the colonies the elite discovered that they could harness the anger of the lower class citizens to get the English out of the colonies and that’s exactly what happened. Obviously not what I would have thought would have occurred during the American Revolution. 

I find it extremely interesting how these topics we learn in middle school, as well as high school, do not provide us with the full story as to what happened through history. For example, in elementary school we were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America where in actuality he massacred an entire nation. Another example is MLK and the impact that he had on Civil Rights. Nowhere was it ever discussed the impact Mrs. King had on Civil Rights and after Mr. Kings’s death the impact she continued to have. Now also learning about the American Revolution it truly opens my eyes and makes me question a lot of history I have learned throughout the years. 

6 Comments

Growing up as a Bostonian, I was pretty much taught that the British were evil monster tyrants and the great people of the best colony fought their little hearts out to make the evil Brits sail back across the Atlantic. Fourth of July is the best holiday and pilgrims were cool. I now know this is pretty one-sided the amazing new government the new United States created was not all that great or original. The claims of the post-revolutionary United States are extremely lacking in factual evidence, but Zinn’s piece on tyranny gave me a new perspective on why it was so wrong.

The ideas of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” sounds great on paper but upon further examination these terms can be as restrictive if not more restrictive than what the British imposed on the colonies in the first place. Maybe because the new system was “American” and new to them we was why it appealed to its citizens so much, but people only really have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not infringe on others’ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

The United States may be better off now than it was before, but we are mot definitely not a just, completely equal, perfect society. We still have injustice, we still have leaders who don’t always put our needs first, and immerse disparities in health, wealth and happiness. Not that I have not thought of the United States as a bit broken from other readings in this class, but I think Zinn sheds a new light on how our specific society has been unequal since its foundation, even despite its claim that they replaced control with freedom and oppression with representation.

6 Comments

Kelley’s In Praise of Followers focuses on the redefining of the relationship of leaders and followers, and the advantageous results that can come from it. Instead of viewing the two groups differently, Kelley calls for a reimagining of leaders and followers as equals, but with different roles. One of the most interesting points to me was when Kelley pointed out that effective followers have “initiative, self-control, commitment, talent, honesty, credibility, and courage” (Kelley). However, these are traits commonly associated with leaders. I liked that Kelley was calling for the development of followership, because his ideas work to raise the agency or potential of everyone in the group, and that in turn will allow the organization to grow.

This reading reminded me of Gardner’s because he was also talking about how groups do not fall into easy divisions of leaders and passive followers. Rather, there is a dynamic between the leaders and followers that affects both in shaping the group. While the idea of a dynamic interaction between follower and leader is attractive, Kelley raised the point that “in practice, followers who challenge their bosses run the risk of getting fired” (Kelley). This is problematic, because it creates sort of catch 22, where the followers cannot be effective if they don’t challenge the leader, but if they do, there is always the potential they will be fired, at least in the corporate world.

1 Comment

I found this article very interesting in that it gave a whole new perspective on how our country was founded. While reading Zinn’s article it goes into detail on how these wars were calculated and thought out carefully. I thought it was very interesting because I feel like I haven’t been taught the true meaning of the American Revolution and how it started and by reading this article it definitely clears it up.

Zinn also goes into how wealth was a big factor. The article shows how the poorer people have to work harder for wealthy goods while wealthy people are the ones benefiting from this and not the poor people.

7 Comments

This reading gave me another viewpoint to look at the foundation of America. While I do not think it is to the same degree today, the wealth in America is the primary causation of any political or social change. This article shows that the poor have been working for the wealthy’s good. However, the wealthy get the most benefit out of it. For example, the mechanics who tried to promote a genuine democracy.

Fighting for a true democracy has been a goal of the middle and lower class Americans for years. All across the world countries are run by some form of patriarchy. With a patriarchy comes different degrees of power. Is it possible to have a true democracy in hand with a patriarchal system of power? I don’t believe that it is 100% attainable. One can come close to balancing the powers, however with some form of unequal power there will always be so much “the people” of the country can influence.

6 Comments

Rebellions have been used over time to overthrow governments who weren’t sufficiently providing for the people. This has especially been seen throughout history in the United States. This struggle has almost always been linked with the oppression of the poor by the wealthy. The fight between the two was also commonly used to get the people against another, larger opposer. In one of the examples given, the author describes the French or England

I am curious, then, what makes a country actually rally up against another opponent when there is enough strife within. Is it because it is only one party who has genuine influence over the issue? Or does the sense of nationalism overcome any anger towards the outside party? I would assume that the nationalistic feel would only carry them so far, as I feel that it would decrease overtime and no longer be an effective way to get the people together.

 

4 Comments

I think that Zinn provides a very interesting point of view on these topics. I find these ideas intriguing because it’s a whole new way to look at the start of our country and whether or not America is really founded on ideals that we should continue to live by. The idea of America being founded by people exploiting others but promoting freedom and equality is quite radical however he makes great points and is pretty convincing. “In colonial America, for example, events unfolded organically from people’s actions and responses. When the upper class made a move to tax property, the working class responded by forming the Regulator movement in protest. The upper class then pushed back by redirecting the people’s energy against faraway enemies in Britain. When the working class realized capitalism wasn’t working for them, they attacked capitalism’s most powerful symbol—private property. Zinn demonstrates the reasons behind people’s actions, the results of their actions, and the long-term effects. These patterns are what constitute history.” He brings up this point that there wasn’t a group that controlled America and planned everything and everything just unfolded in a certain way which allowed for these types fo things to happen.

2 Comments

This reading provided a lot of new information about the American Revolution and the events leading up to it. Zinn describes the large economic divides within the colonies and the wealthy colonists’ deceptive manipulation of the lower classes. On page 65 Zinn explains that “colonist leaders had a divided white population”. He explains how leaders of the Independence movement were thoughfully instigating rebellion when they wanted to and made attempts to contain rebellion of certain things to avoid the risk of an uproar on them, the wealthy.  He later explains that the colonies’ leaders s would bring the need for rebellion to the attention of the populations that could help them when they needed the manpower. For example, they would approach the mechanics “who had a stake in the fight against England, who faced competition from English manufacturers” and assure that they knew who the enemy was that was causing their economic struggle.  One of the most eyeopening phrases from this piece was when Zinn mentions that one of the “biggest [problems] was to keep the propertyless people, who were unemployed and hungry in the crisis following the  French war, under control” as the leaders of the Independence movement tried to aim the mob energy of the poor towards the British while also containing it so” it would not demand too much from them.”

Zinn displays that the motives and strategies of rebellion against English rule were not unified or equally distributed amongst the colonist population. There was a large push to “relieve tension between the upper and lower classes and [instead] form a bond against the British”. I was aware that not all colonists were equal in occupation or economic rank but it was never explained to me that there was such a conscious effort of the wealthy to guide the anger of the other classes towards the British and away from themselves.

2 Comments

I honestly didn’t know how to interpret this article until the very last sentence: “‘Tyranny is Tyranny let it come from whom it may’” (p. 75). That chant summarized the article, in my opinion, to be about the irony of American history. The author discusses major events during the late 18^th century leading up to the American Revolution and how class structure and money played a role in the events. Gary Nash’s study of Boston in the 1770s is a prime example of the foreshadowing this time period had for the rest of American history thus far. People in Boston, those who were upper class men but “excluded from the ruling circles close to England,” rallied together to form caucuses that voiced lower-class laborer opinions in the face of the wealth gap and taxation (p. 60). This movement exemplifies American political habits of “the mobilization of lower-class energy by upper-class politicians” (p. 61). Furthermore, the article discusses how land rioters were trying to fight the wage gap as the mere fact of property owning dictated a citizen’s rights. The Boston Massacre itself was underscored by impressment according to the article, meaning they were fighting back against forced recruitment by the British forces (p. 67). These all serve as examples of steps Americans needed to take in a fight against the monarchy, they didn’t want any part in anymore. Yet, four days after the official Declaration of Independence was read by Thomas Crafts, the Boston Committee of Correspondence ordered a mandatory military draft- for the poor men (p. 75). All they had fought for in Boston, through massacres and boycotts, culminated in impressment for the lower-class citizens from the upper-class politicians. How ironic.

2 Comments