The Importance of Followership

My blog stats tell me that my most viewed post, by an extraordinary amount, is Power = force + distance/time. Don’t remember it? I barely do either. It’s a little “back soon” post I wrote during a busy period, feeling guilty for not having written much.

It’s ironic (and humbling) that the most read post isn’t anything related to my ideas. It’s popularity is due to the key words – power, force, distance – which comprise the physics formula for power and also the key to elite fitness, according to Crossfit, a strength and conditioning program whose popularity is exploding.

But it tempts me to try again and this time, make it meaningful to the topic of leadership and power. Jude Morton, a regular commenter here voiced what I too have been thinking since that post:

Outside of physics, all of these formulas seem applicable to psychological processes.

So let’s consider that. In physics, work is the transfer of energy to an object, and power is the rate at which work is done, so the faster you can transfer energy to an object, the more power you have. In sociology, there is no one formula for power or work, but a classic definition might be: the ability to influence your environment and get things done, often through others.

Interesting, because using these formulas it becomes evident just how much power is dependent on others. If we talk about objects, it sounds simple enough. But when objects are people, with free will, minds of their own, feelings and reactions, it’s more complex.

The dependency of the leader is not something talked about much in books and articles on leadership. Most books on leadership focus on vision, authority, inspiration, charisma, and execution. But the fact is, the higher up you go, the more isolated and dependent you become. You have to depend on others for feedback, support, and executing strategy. But your rank and role isolates you from others. And while you depend on those below you for information, your subordinates might not want to tell you the truth because their fate depends on your approval. It’s a classic conflict of interest. No one likes to hear bad news, or no one likes to be told what they don’t want to hear. And bosses often create climates where bad news and hard conversations can’t be had.

Which brings up the importance of good followership. Being a follower is a complex role, requiring sophisticated skills and abilities. I’ve talked elsewhere about the value of the Number 2 person, but followership is an even broader concept. What does it take to be a great follower, and how does someone become empowered and supportive, able to speak truth to power in a helpful way? Followers have to have a great deal of inner power to contribute and speak up, not wait to be asked or their opinion solicited. To shine and to contribute, without a designated role or rank requires self esteem.

In this month’s HBR, there’s an article on trust, What’s Needed Next: A Culture of Candor which illustrated the importance of upward communication, the ability of the follower or subordinate to speak truth to power. The authors cite the findings of NASA study on the human factors involved in airline accidents. They studied the communication between cockpit crew members in simulations and found that

the stereotypical “flyboy pilots,” who acted immediately on their gut instincts, made the wrong decisions far more often than the more open, inclusive pilots who said to their crews, in effect, “We’ve got a problem. How do you read it?” before choosing a course of action.

The authors conclude that “leaders are far likelier to make mistakes when they act on too little information than when they wait to learn more.” Going further, they said, that the

the pilots’ habitual style of interacting with their crews determined whether crew members would provide them with essential information during an in-air crisis. The pilots who’d made the right choices routinely had open exchanges with their crew members. The study also showed that crew members who had regularly worked with the “decisive” pilots were unwilling to intervene –  even when they had information that might save the plane.

Those who have read Gladwell’s recent book, Outliers, recognize in this study his chapter on airline crashed and the problem too much deference to authority creates.

Looking at the transfer of energy to an object highlights a problem of leadership that is too little discussed yet very topical –  the leader’s dependency on others, and the importance of creating a culture of openness and low deference. This more relational, collaborative leadership is not, as some authors say, an alternative style of leadership, but a necessary, even life and death ingredient of effective leadership.