1. The Power Of Followership Robert Kelley Pdf

We are convinced that corporations succeed or fail, compete or crumble, on the basis of how well they are led. So we study great leaders of the past and present and spend vast quantities of time and money looking for leaders to hire and trying to cultivate leadership in the employees we already have. I have no argument with this enthusiasm. Leaders matter greatly. But in searching so zealously for better leaders we tend to lose sight of the people these leaders will lead. Without his armies, after all, Napoleon was just a man with grandiose ambitions.

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. In 1987, declining profitability and intensified competition for corporate clients forced a large commercial bank on the east coast to reorganize its operations and cut its work force. Its most seasoned managers had to spend most of their time in the field working with corporate customers.

The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. Rethinking Followership (by Robert Kelley). Rethinking Followership (by Robert Kelley) (pdf). In Praise of Followers View more. Then imagine for a moment the power of an organization blessed. Robert Kelley is a professor at the. Can sometimes mean being someone without power, influence, or authority, as in a subordinate (Kellerman, 2008), or can also mean the other group of individuals involved in the leadership relationship that has as much power and authority as leaders (Kelley, 1988, 1992; Chaleff, 1995, 2009). The Power Of Followership Robert Kelley Pdf To Jpg An enthusiastic leader might frustrate himself in his effort to build a relationship with an avoidant follower, and vice versa. These must be addressed before other matters are expected to be resolved.

Time and energies were stretched so thin that one department head decided he had no choice but to delegate the responsibility for reorganization to his staff people, who had recently had training in self-management. Despite grave doubts, the department head set them up as a unit without a leader, responsible to one another and to the bank as a whole for writing their own job descriptions, designing a training program, determining criteria for performance evaluations, planning for operational needs, and helping to achieve overall organizational objectives.

They pulled it off. The bank’s officers were delighted and frankly amazed that rank-and-file employees could assume so much responsibility so successfully. In fact, the department’s capacity to control and direct itself virtually without leadership saved the organization months of turmoil, and as the bank struggled to remain a major player in its region, valuable management time was freed up to put out other fires.

What was it these singular employees did? Given a goal and parameters, they went where most departments could only have gone under the hands-on guidance of an effective leader.

But these employees accepted the delegation of authority and went there alone. They thought for themselves, sharpened their skills, focused their efforts, put on a fine display of grit and spunk and self-control. They followed effectively. To encourage this kind of effective following in other organizations, we need to understand the nature of the follower’s role. To cultivate good followers, we need to understand the human qualities that allow effective followership to occur.

The Role of Follower Bosses are not necessarily good leaders; subordinates are not necessarily effective followers. Many bosses couldn’t lead a horse to water.

Many subordinates couldn’t follow a parade. Some people avoid either role. Others accept the role thrust upon them and perform it badly. At different points in their careers, even at different times of the working day, most managers play both roles, though seldom equally well.

After all, the leadership role has the glamour and attention. We take courses to learn it, and when we play it well we get applause and recognition. But the reality is that most of us are more often followers than leaders. Even when we have subordinates, we still have bosses. For every committee we chair, we sit as a member on several others. So followership dominates our lives and organizations, but not our thinking, because our preoccupation with leadership keeps us from considering the nature and the importance of the follower. What distinguishes an effective from an ineffective follower is enthusiastic, intelligent, and self-reliant participation—without star billing—in the pursuit of an organizational goal.

Effective followers differ in their motivations for following and in their perceptions of the role. Some choose followership as their primary role at work and serve as team players who take satisfaction in helping to further a cause, an idea, a product, a service, or, more rarely, a person. Others are leaders in some situations but choose the follower role in a particular context. Both these groups view the role of follower as legitimate, inherently valuable, even virtuous. Some potentially effective followers derive motivation from ambition. By proving themselves in the follower’s role, they hope to win the confidence of peers and superiors and move up the corporate ladder. These people do not see followership as attractive in itself.

All the same, they can become good followers if they accept the value of learning the role, studying leaders from a subordinate’s perspective, and polishing the followership skills that will always stand them in good stead. Understanding motivations and perceptions is not enough, however. Since followers with different motivations can perform equally well, I examined the behavior that leads to effective and less effective following among people committed to the organization and came up with two underlying behavioral dimensions that help to explain the difference.

Some Followers Are More Effective Sheep are passive and uncritical, lacking in initiative and sense of responsibility. They perform the tasks given them and stop. Yes People are a livelier but equally unenterprising group. Dependent on a leader for inspiration, they can be aggressively deferential, even servile. Bosses weak in judgment and self-confidence tend to like them and to form alliances with them that can stultify the organization.

Alienated Followers are critical and independent in their thinking but passive in carrying out their role. Somehow, sometime, something turned them off.

Often cynical, they tend to sink gradually into disgruntled acquiescence, seldom openly opposing a leader’s efforts. In the very center of the diagram we have Survivors, who perpetually sample the wind and live by the slogan “better safe than sorry.” They are adept at surviving change. In the upper right-hand corner, finally, we have Effective Followers, who think for themselves and carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness. Because they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers, they get consistently high ratings from peers and many superiors. Followership of this kind can be a positive and acceptable choice for parts or all of our lives—a source of pride and fulfillment. Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership.

Many followers believe they offer as much value to the organization as leaders do, especially in project or task-force situations. In an organization of effective followers, a leader tends to be more an overseer of change and progress than a hero. As organizational structures flatten, the quality of those who follow will become more and more important. As Chester I.

Barnard wrote 50 years ago in The Functions of the Executive, “The decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the person to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in ‘persons of authority’ or those who issue orders.” The Qualities of Followers Effective followers share a number of essential qualities: 1. They manage themselves well. They are committed to the organization and to a purpose, principle, or person outside themselves.

They build their competence and focus their efforts for maximum impact. They are courageous, honest, and credible. Paradoxically, the key to being an effective follower is the ability to think for oneself—to exercise control and independence and to work without close supervision.

Good followers are people to whom a leader can safely delegate responsibility, people who anticipate needs at their own level of competence and authority. Another aspect of this paradox is that effective followers see themselves—except in terms of line responsibility—as the equals of the leaders they follow. They are more apt to openly and unapologetically disagree with leadership and less likely to be intimidated by hierarchy and organizational structure. At the same time, they can see that the people they follow are, in turn, following the lead of others, and they try to appreciate the goals and needs of the team and the organization. Ineffective followers, on the other hand, buy into the hierarchy and, seeing themselves as subservient, vacillate between despair over their seeming powerlessness and attempts to manipulate leaders for their own purposes.

Either their fear of powerlessness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—for themselves and often for their work units as well—or their resentment leads them to undermine the team’s goals. Self-managed followers give their organizations a significant cost advantage because they eliminate much of the need for elaborate supervisory control systems that, in any case, often lower morale.

In 1985, a large midwestern bank redesigned its personnel selection system to attract self-managed workers. Those conducting interviews began to look for particular types of experience and capacities—initiative, teamwork, independent thinking of all kinds—and the bank revamped its orientation program to emphasize self-management.

At the executive level, role playing was introduced into the interview process: how you disagree with your boss, how you prioritize your in-basket after a vacation. In the three years since, employee turnover has dropped dramatically, the need for supervisors has decreased, and administrative costs have gone down. Of course not all leaders and managers like having self-managing subordinates. Some would rather have sheep or yes people. The best that good followers can do in this situation is to protect themselves with a little career self-management—that is, to stay attractive in the marketplace. The qualities that make a good follower are too much in demand to go begging for long. Effective followers are committed to something—a cause, a product, an organization, an idea—in addition to the care of their own lives and careers.

Some leaders misinterpret this commitment. Seeing their authority acknowledged, they mistake loyalty to a goal for loyalty to themselves.

But the fact is that many effective followers see leaders merely as coadventurers on a worthy crusade, and if they suspect their leader of flagging commitment or conflicting motives they may just withdraw their support, either by changing jobs or by contriving to change leaders. Self-confident followers see colleagues as allies and leaders as equals. The opportunities and the dangers posed by this kind of commitment are not hard to see.

On the one hand, commitment is contagious. Most people like working with colleagues whose hearts are in their work. Morale stays high. Workers who begin to wander from their purpose are jostled back into line. Projects stay on track and on time. In addition, an appreciation of commitment and the way it works can give managers an extra tool with which to understand and channel the energies and loyalties of their subordinates. On the other hand, followers who are strongly committed to goals not consistent with the goals of their companies can produce destructive results.

Leaders having such followers can even lose control of their organizations. A scientist at a computer company cared deeply about making computer technology available to the masses, and her work was outstanding. Since her goal was in line with the company’s goals, she had few problems with top management. Yet she saw her department leaders essentially as facilitators of her dream, and when managers worked at cross-purposes to that vision, she exercised all of her considerable political skills to their detriment. Her immediate supervisors saw her as a thorn in the side, but she was quite effective in furthering her cause because she saw eye to eye with company leaders. But what if her vision and the company’s vision had differed?

Effective followers temper their loyalties to satisfy organizational needs—or they find new organizations. Effective leaders know how to channel the energies of strong commitment in ways that will satisfy corporate goals as well as a follower’s personal needs. Competence and Focus.

On the grounds that committed incompetence is still incompetence, effective followers master skills that will be useful to their organizations. They generally hold higher performance standards than the work environment requires, and continuing education is second nature to them, a staple in their professional development. Less effective followers expect training and development to come to them. The only education they acquire is force-fed. If not sent to a seminar, they don’t go.

Their competence deteriorates unless some leader gives them parental care and attention. Good followers take on extra work gladly, but first they do a superb job on their core responsibilities. They are good judges of their own strengths and weaknesses, and they contribute well to teams.

Asked to perform in areas where they are poorly qualified, they speak up. Like athletes stretching their capacities, they don’t mind chancing failure if they know they can succeed, but they are careful to spare the company wasted energy, lost time, and poor performance by accepting challenges that coworkers are better prepared to meet. Good followers see coworkers as colleagues rather than competitors. At the same time, effective followers often search for overlooked problems.

A woman on a new product development team discovered that no one was responsible for coordinating engineering, marketing, and manufacturing. She worked out an interdepartmental review schedule that identified the people who should be involved at each stage of development. Instead of burdening her boss with yet another problem, this woman took the initiative to present the issue along with a solution.

Another woman I interviewed described her efforts to fill a dangerous void in the company she cared about. Young managerial talent in this manufacturing corporation had traditionally made careers in production.

Convinced that foreign competition would alter the shape of the industry, she realized that marketing was a neglected area. She took classes, attended seminars, and read widely. More important, she visited customers to get feedback about her company’s and competitors’ products, and she soon knew more about the product’s customer appeal and market position than any of her peers.

The extra competence did wonders for her own career, but it also helped her company weather a storm it had not seen coming. Effective followers are credible, honest, and courageous. They establish themselves as independent, critical thinkers whose knowledge and judgment can be trusted.

They give credit where credit is due, admitting mistakes and sharing successes. They form their own views and ethical standards and stand up for what they believe in.

Insightful, candid, and fearless, they can keep leaders and colleagues honest and informed. The other side of the coin of course is that they can also cause great trouble for a leader with questionable ethics. Groups with many leaders can be chaos.

Groups with none can be very productive. Groups with temporary and rotating leadership are another possibility.

Again, such groups are probably best kept small and the rotation fairly frequent, although the notion might certainly be extended to include the administration of a small department for, say, six-month terms. Some of these temporary leaders will be less effective than others, of course, and some may be weak indeed, which is why critics maintain that this structure is inefficient. Why not let the best leader lead? Why suffer through the tenure of less effective leaders? There are two reasons.

First, experience of the leadership role is essential to the education of effective followers. Second, followers learn that they must compensate for ineffective leadership by exercising their skill as good followers. Rotating leader or not, they are bound to be faced with ineffective leadership more than once in their careers. Delegation to the lowest level is a third technique for cultivating good followers. Nordstrom’s, the Seattle-based department store chain, gives each sales clerk responsibility for servicing and satisfying the customer, including the authority to make refunds without supervisory approval. This kind of delegation makes even people at the lowest levels responsible for their own decisions and for thinking independently about their work.

Finally, companies can use rewards to underline the importance of good followership. This is not as easy as it sounds. Managers dependent on yes people and sheep for ego gratification will not leap at the idea of extra rewards for the people who make them most uncomfortable. In my research, I have found that effective followers get mixed treatment. About half the time, their contributions lead to substantial rewards. The other half of the time they are punished by their superiors for exercising judgment, taking risks, and failing to conform. Many managers insist that they want independent subordinates who can think for themselves.

In practice, followers who challenge their bosses run the risk of getting fired. In today’s flatter, leaner organization, companies will not succeed without the kind of people who take pride and satisfaction in the role of supporting player, doing the less glorious work without fanfare. Organizations that want the benefits of effective followers must find ways of rewarding them, ways of bringing them into full partnership in the enterprise. Think of the thousands of companies that achieve adequate performance and lackluster profits with employees they treat like second-class citizens. Then imagine for a moment the power of an organization blessed with fully engaged, fully energized, fully appreciated followers.

##'$%&'.+,-#./012/310-&04.05-67-2 &.8.9:-.6501-;0.?!' #$%'&'(&).' +,-&./0.' &1,'2./3 4.5%/6.&'2/37&8/9:-00-;/39&,'/&?-3&'&'9&.,/3/&,'('0&#/6.(-6&-?&.,/&(#2-3.' 6/&-?&?-00-;/39,(2G&;,/6&H(0/9&9.' ./%&.,'.&!'

##'$%&'.+.)/%&0/1&%,2%3)%$,'4,0,2)')56,7'$%&,8%9'5.%0:%&'. 2905,;&-?&.,/(3&3/0'.(-69,(2& KB-0'6&LMMCNA&O,/6&(6&CDPPG&+-$/3.&)A&Q/00/I&'#/&52&;(.,&'%$3/'R(&./=.&-6&.,/& /=(9./6/G&'6%&(#2-3.'

The Power Of Followership Robert Kelley Pdf

6/G&-?&?-00-;/39,(2&K:3(9(6'G&LMMSNA&4(6/&.,/6G&T3'&1,'0/??&?-00-;/%&;(.,& '&./=.&-?&,(9&-;6G&=(%,'1&06%'1',!'