Exuding something or the “Followership’ Folly

Easily among the most disagreeable aspects of the generally disagreeable concept of exceptional individual leadership is the noxious notion of “followership.” When the modern leadership movement’s supporters find even themselves waxing too reverential about the singular qualities of their hopes and dreams, when they realize that there may be a problem with their spending so much time discussing the concept in isolation; they look about for something to tie this great being to, something that can appear to give it purpose and meaning.

Does that turn out to be the organization?

No. The organization, after all, exists merely to give expression to the “musings,” as one prominent leadership guru puts it, of the leader at its apex. Indeed, he argues, it should be conceived and designed solely for that very purpose.

Owners?

No again. These – especially as represented by the board of directors – are expected to announce their unconditional faith in the leader, grant unconstrained power to him or her, and to backstop and facilitate his or her inspired expressions of leadership.

Organizational goals?

Of course not. But surely you knew that – these come from the leader, not from those who lack his or her rarified insight and vision.

So, when leadership gurus relate the leader to something other than his or her vastly remarkable self, they conjure up the faithful follower – the benighted but enthralled, the skilled but clueless climbers waiting to be told where to mount their ladders. Indeed we must, these “experts” and leadership “scholars” tell us, study this important “phenomenon” more; we must explore, elucidate, identify, and clarify the characteristics of followers and their role in slotting their subservience into service to whatever great leader wafts by with matching leadership pheromonic markers.

So, that’s the first inevitable and unavoidable problem with any discussion of the puzzlingly enduring concept of stand-alone individual leadership. It cannot be about the work – it must be about the person. And its activation can’t be tied to the organization or the work – rather, both of these must be tied to the leader if the whole fabric of this . . . well, fabrication is to hold together.

It must, therefore, be tied to those of us who just seem to swoon in the presence of this ineffable leadership personality that is so variously yet profusely described to us. It makes the idea of individual leadership about relationships – unequal, servile relationships – that transcend the workplace and even the work. After all, they cannot afford to relate their concept of superlative leadership that we cannot hope to equal, to something that might suggest its limitations; rather, it must be something that will serve to give it a kind of justifying context while simultaneously further glorifying it.

There are, though, people who do seem to exude some sort of magnetism, an electrifying influence others feel compelled to respond to. But does that alone mean we should place them in positions of responsibility over us, over our business or organizational enterprises?

We’ll look at that next. See you soon.

Today’s tip: Have you ever taken a survey or test, and just felt that none of the pre-provided answers to a question were adequate responses to the issue presented? Please see this WSJ piece about decision-making styles – why we may have them and what they might mean. It seems a bit dense of the researchers to have taken so long to twig to this, but they surely are on to something at last.

Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues – give it a try right now!

And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Link to original post

Leave a Reply