Cultural and technological A confluence of changes have influenced what subordinates want and how they behave. In reality, the distinctions among followers in groups and organizations are every bit as consequential as those among leaders. These distinctions have critical implications for how leaders should lead and. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the nom de guerre of an individual who has had various names and epithets attributed to him, including Abu Du'a, (أبو دعاء. BRIDGE PAPER™: Developing Ethical Leadership 3 Our view of ethical leadership takes into account not only the leader but also his constituents (followers and key.

Executive Summary Reprint: R0712F Countless studies, workshops, and books have focused on leaders—the charismatic ones, the retiring ones, even the crooked ones. Virtually no literature exists about followers, however, and the little that can be found tends to depict subordinates as an amorphous group or explain their behavior in the context of leaders’ development. Some works even fail to sufficiently distinguish among varying types of followers—barely registering the fact that those who tag along mindlessly are a breed apart from those who are deeply devoted and consciously, actively involved.

These distinctions have critical implications for the way leaders should lead and managers should manage, according to Kellerman, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Additionally, today’s followers are influenced by a range of cultural and technological changes that have affected what they want and how they view and communicate with their ostensible leaders. In this article, Kellerman explores the evolving dynamic between leaders and subordinates and offers a typology that managers can use to determine and appreciate how their followers are different from one another. Using the level of engagement with a leader or group as a defining factor, the author segments followers into five types: Isolates are completely detached; they passively support the status quo with their inaction. Bystanders are free riders who are somewhat detached, depending on their self-interests.

Participants are engaged enough to invest some of their own time and money to make an impact. Activists are very much engaged, heavily invested in people and process, and eager to demonstrate their support or opposition. And diehards are so engaged they’re willing to go down with the ship—or throw the captain overboard.

There is no leader without at least one follower—that’s obvious. Yet the modern leadership industry, now a quarter-century old, is built on the proposition that leaders matter a great deal and followers hardly at all. Good leadership is the stuff of countless courses, workshops, books, and articles. Everyone wants to understand just what makes leaders tick—the charismatic ones, the retiring ones, and even the crooked ones. Good followership, by contrast, is the stuff of nearly nothing. Most of the limited research and writing on subordinates has tended to either explain their behavior in the context of leaders’ development rather than followers’ or mistakenly assume that followers are amorphous, all one and the same. As a result, we hardly notice, for example, that followers who tag along mindlessly are altogether different from those who are deeply devoted.

In reality, the distinctions among followers in groups and organizations are every bit as consequential as those among leaders. This is particularly true in business: In an era of flatter, networked organizations and cross-cutting teams of knowledge workers, it’s not always obvious who exactly is following (or, for that matter, who exactly is leading) and how they are going about it. Download App World Blackberry 9800 Terbaru. Reporting relationships are shifting, and new talent-management tools and approaches are constantly emerging. A confluence of changes—cultural and technological ones in particular—have influenced what subordinates want and how they behave, especially in relation to their ostensible bosses. It’s long overdue for leaders to acknowledge the importance of understanding their followers better. In these next pages, I explore the evolving dynamic between leaders and followers and offer a new typology for determining and appreciating the differences among subordinates. These distinctions have critical implications for how leaders should lead and managers should manage.