It is commonsensical to understand
followers as not leaders. They are "subordinates who have less power,
authority, and influence than do their superiors
and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line." Normally, people in
the subordinate positions go along with those who are superior to them. In other
words, followership is the response of those in subordinate positions to those in
superior ones. Which is why, followership
"implies a relationship between subordinates
and superiors, and a response of the former to the latter." Incidentally, in the 1940s
and 50s, authors like Erich Fromm, Theodor Adorno, and others came up with
an argument that followers achieved their
"social adjustment by taking pleasure in
obedience and subordination." And its obvious fall
out is, it is often considered in organizations
that followers are not important, or are much less important than leaders, despite the
fact that leaders and followers are inextricably enmeshed.
That said, with the kind of convergence taking place all around in today's
globalized world and the information revolution resulting in fast diffusion of
knowledge, followers are now being considered more important. At least, it is now certain
that people in high places can no longer sit
pretty and do what they want and how they want. Today leaders have become more
vulnerable: if they go wrong, or do wrong they are
likely to be punished. For, followers of today
have become more bolder and more strategic, says Barbara Kellerman, James
MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at Harvard's John F Kennedy School
of Government. She goes on to say in her latest book, Followership, "This change, this
small but potentially seismic shift in the balance of power between leaders and
followers, constitutes a caution: leaders who
ignore or dismiss their followers do so at their peril." |
