From: Ira Chaleff

To: Mitch McCrimmon

Subject: Response to essay by Mitch McCrimmon “Derailing the Followership Bandwagon”

Date: November 28, 2009

Dear Mitch,

Thank you for your  clear and thoughtful critique of the emerging field of followership and, in particular, of my own work on courageous followership.

As you are probably aware, your perspective is supported by that of the late Joe Rost, as expressed in his contribution to The Art of Followership, which I co-edited. Like you, he takes strong issue with the use of the term “followership” for reasons that, in my understanding of both your arguments, seem sympathetic with your points. Like you, he sees leadership as an act, not a role, which implies with the implication that this act of influence can be generated from any point in an organization.

What I find attractive about your arguments is that, unlike many others who simply object to the term follower viscerally, you are creating a framework for identifying undesirable consequences that you foresee in the use of the term.

It seems to me that we are both trying to create more empowerment. I understand that your analysis holds my approach to be counterproductive but I don’t see a disagreement with the empowerment goal.

I also agree with you, as do other followership researcher and practitioners like Barbara Kellerman, in her book Followership, and Rodger Adair in his chapter in The Art of Followershiphp, that self interest is an important vector in human relations.

I added a sub-chapter in the 3rd edition of The Courageous Follower, "Self Interest and Common Purpose,' page 17, to elucidate this point more clearly, though perhaps I am still not giving it the weight it deserves.

I very much like your concept of  individuals becoming indispensable because of their contributions to others in the organization. The most recent dissertation completed on the courageous follower model found that of the five categories of behavior in the model, the one that leaders value more than all the others combined is the courage to assume responsibility, whichat I also refer to as the courage to initiate. My framework embraces this while yours makes such acts more central to indispensable performance.

Given the points of agreement above, let me lay out some of the distinctions I see between our frameworks and why I believe the concept of courageous followership has attracted as much interest as it has to warrant a third edition of the book.

The ingredient that I don’t see given sufficient attention in your analysis is that of power, real and imagined. In hierarchical organizations, those higher in the chain usually have certain formal powers over those below them. This is not inherently problematic, but historically there is a tendency for power to be misused or abused.

In my work I find it necessary to do two things: First Ito help individuals lower in the hierarchy develop a more rich appreciation of the types of power that exist so they recognize that even they do have some power with which to act. Second, I help them examine the nature and sources of courage so they will behave in ways that are both principled and in their true self interest, rather than expedient and seemingly safe, when they perceive power being misused.

I find the practical steps you suggest at the end of your analysis all potentially helpful. The catch-22 is that most of them require the endorsement of the higher levels of the hierarchy. Until such endorsement is given and these steps are implemented, what are those lower in the hierarchy to do? While I, too, encourage formal leaders to take these steps (as articulated in the chapter I added to the second edition," The Courage to Listen to Followers"), those below them can exercise the courage to initiate without being totally dependent on the formal leaders to begin the improvement process.

Your analysis also puts the discussion primarily into a business setting. While this is a necessary arena in which to examine these relations, it is not the only or even the primary arena in which I am interested. Historically, the greatest impact of the abuse of power occurs in the public sector, rather than the private sector. Therefore, I find it important to create language that transfers to government agencies, political offices, military organizations, as well as the law and law enforcement. Other non commercial arenas where the language needs to work includes educational institutions, non-profit organizations, religious hierarchies and social movements. The term “supplier,” which you suggest, in the current understanding of the term does not fit easily into such cultures.

I acknowledge that you are not insisting on the term “supplier”, but rather calling for terms that do not perpetuate the industrial age concepts of top- down control. I applaud your efforts. Anyone who has worked in this field has wrestled with the terms. I concede that at times I conflate “manager” and “leader” and I acknowledge the difference in the acts performed by each. The latter, unlike the former, does not require formal authority. What draws me to this conflation is the fact that virtually all the people who participate in my workshops find themselves dealing with the reality of receiving direction from those above them who possess formal authority. That direction may constitute acts of leading or acts of managing, but either type of act, and the style in which they are enacted, are the realities with which those below them contend.

The challenge becomes even greater when the work on “followers” and “followership” is translated into other languages. Many cultures have analogous words that are even more laden with problematic connotations than these terms are in English. Publishers in several languages have opted to simply appropriate the English word “follower” since their languages have already adopted the English word “leader.” This avoids rather than risks confusing the reader with the semantic baggage that accompanies the existing words.  

In essence, I am are trying to introduce memes into cultures that will create healthier interdependence between those with formal authority and those with less or no formal authority but who have personal and communal stakes in the outcomes of the group’s activities. Dialogues like this will help us to better define where we are with the subject, where we might go or need to go, and how to get there.

It may be that “courageous followership” will someday prove to have been only a necessary way station on the path to better models and descriptive language. That would be fine. However, as we move along that path, I cannot discount the multitude of feedback I have gotten as to how the concepts and language in the existing model have helped those who are exposed to it. The journey for many to date has been to recognize that “follower” is not a personality type as the culture disparagingly believes, but rather it is a situational role that individuals play at appropriate times., They discover that the role can be played powerfully. To that degree the “courageous follower” meme is being successful. If the alternatives you propose find traction and serve the ends you propose, they, too, will represent evolutionary progress.

Best,

Ira Chaleff