Ideal followers

The ideal and the counter-ideal follower - advancing implicit followership theories.

Nina M. Junker, Sebastian Stegmann, Stephan Braun and Rolf Van Dick

Leadership and organisational development Journal, Volume 37 Number 8, 2016.

The argument it makes:

That people enter leader-follower relationships with an implicit belief about that makes a good follower, and what doesn’t. When followers act in certain ways, they confirm these beliefs and are then indelibly labeled by the leader as either ideal, or non-ideal.

Key findings:

That we do indeed enter leader-follower relationships with these implicit theories about what makes good followers (and also leaders, but that isn’t discussed in this article). When a follower shows a behaviour we associate with our pre-set ideas of what makes a good follower - e.g. being honest - we tend to then subconsciously categorise that person as being an ideal follower, and treat them as such in future interactions.

Conversely, if they show behaviours we associate with non-ideal followers, we instead categorise them mentally as non-ideal, and unconsciously treat them differently based on this mental categorisation.

Conclusions:

This aligns with other work done on confirmation bias. If we tend to believe that a good follower is loyal, and we discern loyal behaviours in a follower, we will then see more ideal behaviours than non-ideal, and believe the person to be a good follower. Conversely, if someone is late to a meeting and we believe that punctuality is typical of good leaders, we will tend to notice more of the less-ideas characteristics of this follower going forward. First impressions, then, do appear to matter - even if we try not to let them.

Practical applications:

For leaders, it is important to understand what your initial impression of someone is, and that this will tend to colour your perception of that follower’s behaviours. If they didn’t make a good impression at the outset, we might be harsher with them than they deserve, especially when it comes to things like performance reviews or pay raises. For this reason it is important to have a record of behaviour and actions that can provide objective evidence for later assessment, rather than just going by our potentially-tainted memories and emotional reviews. No one is perfectly objective in their mental reviews.

Humility

Humility

Daryl R. Van Tongeren1, Don E. Davis2, Joshua N. Hook3, and Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2019, Vol. 28(5) 463–468

The argument it makes:

That humility has several aspects worth further research. Humility requires that one be open to new possibilities, to defend a position while remaining open to the possibility of change. To believe that a culture is not the best just because it is one’s own. Learning is more important that being right.

Key findings:

Firstly, that humility is good for social bonding, allowing us to form initial bonds, then resolve and move past disagreements. Second, it lubricates relationships and offsets power differentials or cultural misunderstandings – particularly important for leaders. Lastly, it contributes to better mental well-being.

Research needed to determine whether there is a ‘dark’ side that would offset the positives of humility.

Conclusions:

Humility is a powerful tool for enhancing relationships. It offsets power for leaders and makes them more likely to be appreciated and respected. It respects other’s status, and increases relatedness. It eases the sense of control and offers a sense of openness.

Practical applications:

Being humble can help leaders maintain influence through interpersonal relationship quality. It doesn’t undermine respect – it enhances it. Develop it by questioning your beliefs. Ironically, you need it to develop it. It also implies – and requires – trust, which is a key tenet of leadership (and followership).

Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership

Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership

Mark Van Vugt

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2006 vol. 10 (4), 3 pp. 354-371

Key Findings: 
Leadership is a key feature of the human condition – it’s a selected behaviour.
Followership is probably even more so – social cohesion requires it. 
Leadership evolved coincident with communication and culture. It therefore can’t exist without these
Leadership was an action that emerged to solve problems – Followership was the ‘normal’ state of affairs
There wasn’t one leader for every problem, but rather leaders who specialised in problems
The traits we implicitly associate with Leadership are those that served hunter-gatherers the best; and those that we dislike in leaders were counter-productive to hunter gatherer society

Summation of the theory
Leadership and Followership are selected characteristics of human evolution. They play a part in social group cohesion, and are therefore fundamental to the human experience

Conclusions
Followership is the ‘natural’ state of affairs. Leaders emerge as the situation dictates in order to solve specific problems, as best suits their fit within the social group.

Potential practical implications
This article provides some support for the concept of emergent leadership. Look for the team member best suited to solve certain problems and ask them to take a point role in solving issues.
Communication and culture are inextricably linked to Leadership – improve these, and you will improve Leadership
Everyone tends to follow based on the situation – use this to help get people on board and to note when your voice is not required for a task to progress.
The groups needs will always be implicitly met – define these and get ownership, and Leadership and Followership will naturally emerge.