The diverse (and dark) sides of technical followership
Recently I wrote about the only leadership theory that matters and then asked why people follow your lead.
Most of you approached this by asking yourself, “Why do I follow someone?” This is a wonderful way to begin your exploration of the topic.
(Fun fact — psychologists call this “me-search”, a bit of a pun on “research”. The fancy name for this is “autoethnography”,)
You shared thoughts such as:
- I follow people that inspire me. They have something I aspire to, or at least would like to aspire. I have a greater respect to these persons than usual and I know for a fact that they are very good at _that_ of which my inspiration derives.
- I follow much of the philosophy that I saw from my previous tech manager. I knew that he was an extremely good software engineer and in terms of leadership he lead by example and never let someone else took a bullet than him. He protected the team and at the same time empowered us.
- I trust that my boss has my back.
- They have their own opinion and are honest with others. I follow when someone makes sense to me, even if that’s not 100% of the time.
- I need the paycheck, so I must do what they say.
After doing more reading, thinking, and me-search, I’ve formed a working Theory of Followership.
My theory is that people actively follow based on the following factors.
1. Trust/Relationship — They feel a positive relationship toward the leader.2. Competence — They feel the leader is competent.3. Vision/Purpose — They feel the leader is going in a “good” direction.4. Admiration — They feel the leader has positive qualities, which they wish to possess.5. Environment — The environment reinforces followership activities.
A Hypothesis to test the theory
First, consider each factor on a scale from -5 to +5.
Now, let me offer a hypothesis:
To achieve active followership at least 2 factors must score greater than +3, as long as the other factors aren’t below zero.
For example, I’ve had a boss who I enthusiastically followed who scored this way:1.Trust/Relationship: +32. Competence: +53. Vision/Purpose: 04. Admiration: +15. Environment: +1
I’ve had another boss who I struggled to follow, because at least one factor was below 0:1. Trust/Relationship: +32. Competence: -23. Vision/Purpose: +34. Admiration: -15. Environment: +2
Even though we had a good relationship (+3), a shared purpose (+3), I didn’t feel they were competent (-2) in their current role, and I didn’t really admire them (-1).
No matter how high some factors are, the more factors come in below zero, the less we actively follow.
Finally, I had a boss who I couldn’t stand, but followed anyhow, that scored like this:1. Trust/Relationship: -12. Competence: -23. Vision/Purpose: +24. Admiration: 05. Environment: +5
This was a job that I had to have to pay the bills, or my kids would be on the street. I did somewhat believe in the work, but truthfully, I was there for the money.
I don’t think I really “followed” him, but I did what he told me to so I wouldn’t get fired. Maybe we could call that “passive followership” (or “death march”). <grin>
Notice a pattern?
Each factor is subjective, and we’re scoring from the perspective of the follower, not the leader.
This means what’s important is not how leaders try to be perceived, but how they are actually perceived by their team.
As Virginia Satir wisely said, “You can’t see your own back, but everyone else can.”
The only score that matters is the one that followers give you. You’ve got to find a way to get information from them, and then create a feedback loop for improvement.
DO try this at homeTake a step beyond me-search and take a few minutes to rank someone above you on the scale presented above.
- What factors do you feel impact you the most?
- How would you change my Theory of Followership to fit you better?
- Extra credit for asking someone on your team to rank you on this scale, and then having a discussion about it.
I’d love to hear how this went. Leave a comment, or drop me a line at [email protected].