The Human Capital Institute (whose Talent panel I sit on – full disclosure) has added several very interesting blogs including in my prime area of interest – leadership. The first real post raises the question of followership – what is it, how should it work, etc.? Human Capital Insititutes's new leadershp blog

This is typical of the growing interest in all thing Human Resources. These are perennial questions and will continue to be asked until we develop enough people who simply understand how leadership really works in their bones. Once the principles become a core part of everything we do in management, like the financial concept that income must exceed outgo, they will puzzle each new generation.

The blog refers us to a Harvard Working Knowledge item by Professor Emeritus, Jim Heskett, that is an relevant summary of what’s newly written about Followership, but it is the comments to that make it fascinating. I especially like the fourth one by Narasimhan Gopalan, VP, i-flex solutions, who observes that leadership and followership require the same qualities (and I would add skills).

Personally I prefer to use the term “supporters” rather than “followers.” The days of blind following are grinding slowly, but surely to an end. People think for themselves and are finding ways to act on those thoughts more than in the past. “Supporters” implies a leaders needs to nurture support, that it can be withdrawn at any sign of inconsistency or personal agenda and that the entire process is very much a two-way street. Leaders need supporters and supporters need leaders.

I especially like Narasimhan’s final comment which I thnk raises the most important question that hasn’t yet been well addressed. He says, ”Also, it is interesting to observe in the corporate world, the behavioural expectations set by the boss to his followers are [often] completely at a variance of the boss’ behaviour with his boss and peers. For example, boss expects his directs to engage in collective problem solving and dispute resolution through consensus, share the resources through mutual help, etc. while he/she does not exhibit such behaviour or exhibits exactly opposite behaviour. This is a case of selfishness and hypocrisy and hence it is important for the organizations to assess not only the results achieved by teams per se but also look at how they are achieved at somebody else’s cost! Here, the tools like 360 degree feedback could come in handy.

This very much echoes the comments in my earlier post about Claudia Joyce’s work that I’ve written about elsewhere (and will post when I find time). She endorses the same rules for leaders and the use of 360s to ensure they are promoting collaborative practices. Until more companies do that the problem Narahimhan reminds us of will be only too common.

Bookmark and share this post
[Ask] [Bloglines] [BlogMarks] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [LinkedIn] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email] More »