Critics of followership say that “follower” suggests subservience. No doubt employees should take more ownership and be as proactive as Ira Chaleff’s “courageous followers.” But language matters, and followership is an unfortunate choice of words. To address this issue we need to see how followership rests on a confused notion of leadership. But, first, is there a better way to think of employees than as either followers or subordinates?
I have been calling it “team-membership” same as followship.
When a company want all leaders no-one feels it is their job to be led. Allowing yourself to listen and complete projects within time frames of leadership is a great skill.
Two many chiefs…not enough indians. I think you’re on to something. I don’t know that everyone in an organization needs leadership training. Thanks for the comment.
Actually, the term does not bother me at all. I agree that language is important but this term is fine. In no way does it suggest subservience. It only suggests a role, and the role of the follower is not the same as the role of the leader. Both are critical, but they are different roles.
I love Chaleff’s work on followership. I am not one of the critics Mitch cites but I do know they exists. I’ve been pondering writing something on “contributorship” recently. Mainly, I think we focus far too much on leadership development and not enough on making people know how to contribute their expertise to the organization.
Thanks for the comment Bret. Love to have you write something for LLP.
Performance partners works for me
Not a bad take. I sometimes lament how we also feel the need to keep changing terms because they build up connotations. Thanks for the comment Ian.
Glad to see some interest in this paper. Maybe I’m overreacting but I think calling employees followers is hugely disengaging. I’ve been on such a rampage on this topic lately that I have written 3 more articles attacking the idea of followership. In one article, I argue that the literal meaning of the term “leader” is to go first, like a tour guide. It seems to me that it is only in this literal sense that anyone can be called a follower. Then I argue that an executive is more like a ship’s captain than a tour guide. A ship’s captain recruits a crew and can’t go anywhere without one. But here, the crew helps the captain get his ship to the destination, they do not literally follow him there. They are thus partners or contributors, not followers. So, it seems to me that those who feel we are committed to calling employees followers are really picking up on one literal meaning of “leader” which doesn’t really apply to executives. You can read one of my articles and find links to the other two new ones here: http://www.lead2xl.com/the-death-of-followership