Followership: An Essential to Leadership

Even though hundreds of books a year are published on the subject of leadership, very little is published on followership. Five out of a total of ten books on being a follower have been published in the last three years. It is my opinion that these books will continue to be published in greater frequency. An emphasis on followership is increasing because our culture presents conflicting values within the workplace. In the mid-1990s the Marine Corps realized that young men and women in recruit training were having problems following orders of Drill Instructors. The problem was conflicting values, which led to leader-follower conflict. The solution was more education on ethics and how to follow.

There is responsibility on leaders and followers in order to have a working relationship in accomplishing the objective successfully.

Once I was having a problem with a senior leader who was giving me hell. After lamenting to a colleague, he said, "Tom, its all in relationships." Another said, "Pray for him." I worked on that relationship with my senior leader and prayed for him. He didn't change. However, the Lord changed me. Being a good follower is essential in order to be an authentic leader. Some characteristics of being a good follower are:

· Do what you are told to do. Even though we may not understand the ‘why’ of an assignment, we have a duty to obey, unless it is illegal or unethical. Organizational rules are in place to provide order and structure for all equally. Obedience to following orders allow for discipline to be effective in the organization.

· Be honest and open with you leader. Leadership research by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner says that leaders most desire honesty in their followers and followers most desire honesty in their leaders. Followers have a place in the success of the organization. Leaders need honest input. Speak up and give you’re your point of view.

· Maintain integrity in the relationship with the leader. Giving into a leader who’s ethics are questionable without questioning is blind obedience. Being blindly obedient to further your relationship and career comes with a price. You are still morally accountable. Know the boundaries between you and the leader.

· Praise colleagues on their character traits rather than criticize. Keep talk and discussions with other followers and even with leaders professional. Talking negatively or gossiping about others diminishes the speaker and damages relationships, which reduces productivity. Some leaders have banned gossip in their organization because it is destructive to good order and discipline.

· Be a collaborator and team player. Learn to work across disciplines and diverse backgrounds. Recognize that everyone has value, worth, and a contribution to make. If you are on a high performance team, be aware of elitism creeping in. Reach out to others for help and give credit.

· Never take a problem to a leader without a reasonable solution. Even if it is not entirely accepted, your input will contribute to the resolution.

· Resolve problems between you and a fellow follower or leader. If it can’t be resolved, then take it to the next person in the line of authority. Taking the conflict to others exacerbates and spreads the problem.

· Be creative. If you just wait for an assignment or for whatever work is handed to you, you will most likely be the first to go in a cutback. Leaders like proactive and new ideas for improvements and cost saving from followers.

· Learn to work for the intrinsic value rather than just for extrinsic values. Extrinsic value is awards and recognition, which can be nice. However, if one only seeks the tangible assets they may never find satisfaction in their work. Intrinsic value is receiving personal reward in one’s own actions by making a difference in others’ lives, the organization, and the community. Catching and following the leader’s vision provides satisfaction and reinforces one’s work ethic. Intrinsic value is leading from the heart and not out of narcissism or egoism.

· Be of courage. A willingness to take a stand for what is right earns respect with leaders and other followers. If a leader doesn’t respect your bold actions on ethical grounds, perhaps you will need to find another job. There is no courage without costs. There is no hope without courage.

With competing values in our multicultural society, the need for research and education on followership is becoming more important in order to establish values shared by all in the organization. Leadership is promoted as the ultimate of what all should aspire to. All leaders have to follow someone. Being a good follower prepares us to take the reins of leadership responsibilities. As good followers, the valuable lessons from experience of mistakes, failures, dysfunctional relationships, etc. shape our outlook in leading others.

What characteristics of being a follower have you learned?

Facing Up to Leadership Responsibilities

Sen. Barbara Boxer went to a book signing under a blanket in the back seat of a car. She scheduled book signings in place of meeting with her constituents during the August recess. Rep. Gene Green demands all attendees show proof of identity at his town hall meeting. He authored a bill that would eliminate identity check of all voters. Shelia Lee Jackson took a phone call in the midst of a question at a town hall meeting. Rep. Silvestre Reyes held his town hall meeting by phone to avoid face-time with his constituents. But it isn’t just politicians who dodge the responsibility of leadership. Presidents, CEOs, vice presidents, chairpersons, and directors don’t always step up to the plate when the going gets tough. In The Anatomy of Courage, Lord Moran says “…a man [and woman] is guilty of cowardice when he [or she] displays ‘an unsoldierlike regard for his personal safety in the presence of the enemy’ by shamefully deserting his post or laying down his arms.” We find cowardice behavior in leaders when they are faced with moral challenges by the common folk, much less an enemy.

We are familiar with the fight or flight syndrome when we meet controversy or threat. Running and hiding from leadership responsibilities demonstrates insecurity. We undermine our own leadership capacity before followers, peers, and other leaders. I grew up seeing confrontation as a negative experience. Through my life journey, I have learned to reframe confrontation into a positive experience. To engage has become the third and preferred option to fight or flight, unless the enemy has a weapon. As a leader, rather than asserting my rank, authority, status, power, hubris, or cowardice, I have found that listening has acted to disarm. It levels the playing ground and shows dignity and respect for others’ concerns.

About ten years ago, I was going through a really tough time that required moral leadership with an apparent price. I, too, wanted to run and hide without facing the problem. It was apropos that a Ziggy Cartoon appeared in the midst of my conundrum. At the bottom of a stairway, Ziggy was looking up at the long, hard climb. The caption was It’s not what you face, it’s what you face up to that matters. We talk about courage all the time. However, courage is hard to come by, since it is not without risks or loss. With prayer and fortitude, I found the courage to take a stand for a young woman who had been abused by our leader. I was never promoted again. More importantly, she has excelled in her career and has taken the lead by stepping up to the plate.

It is easy to be a leader when most everyone likes you, while deflecting problems or challenges to lieutenants to take care of. Too often we associate leadership with popularity or better yet today, celebrity status. Authentic leadership calls us to take risks and be available to those we serve. Romanticizing leadership with our followers blindly obeying and following our vision is a false premise and leads to malignant narcissism. Most of a leader’s time is spent in the trenches dealing with challenges, moral dilemmas, and leadership conundrums. Develop the courage to face up to your leadership responsibilities.

Independence Day

"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people , they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." ~ Samuel Adams, Patriot of the American Revolution.

The need for ethical leadership is greater today than in 1776!

Does a One Time Moral Hiccup Impede Moral Leadership?

After five days of mysterious disappearance, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford returned from Buenos Aires, Argentina admitting to marital infidelity with an Argentine woman. Ten days earlier, his wife had kicked him out of their home. For Mr. Sanford, this appears to be a one time moral hiccup. This scenario is not uncommon among politicians. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has recently been accused of having an extra-marital affair with an 18 year old. When asked about Prime Minister Berlusconi’s allegations, citizens of Italy generally responded, “He’s an Italian man.” Italians were more upset with suspicions that Mr. Berlusconi might have used government assets in his dalliance. Jefferson, Cleveland, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, and numerous other public officials have continued to serve successfully in the midst of tryst relationships. Others in lesser offices have resigned in shame for similar infidelities.

Certainly, infidelity is a matter of personal character. Beyond the obvious, Governor Sanford’s ethical leadership is questionable considering his departure to Argentina and absence without notifying his staff. In fact, he told them he was hiking the Appalachian Trail in Northeast Georgia. More importantly, he left the country without transferring gubernatorial powers to Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer. The press published romantic emails from Mr. Sanford to his Argentine mistress. Were they written on the gov.sc.gov email system? Was it ethical to publish the intimate email? As commander-in-chief of the South Carolina National Guard and head of the South Carolina Homeland Security, was there a risk for national security by having a romantic affair with an Argentine woman? Can Mr. Sanford effectively complete the remaining few months of his governorship, or should he resign? What other moral leadership implications are there to be considered? Let me know.

A Firing Exposé

Firing people from their jobs has become entertainment for the masses to enjoy. The new reality show being produced by Fox, Someone’s Gotta Go, is a reflection of the power of the ubiquitous multi-media in the hands of the masses. It will premiere this summer. This new Fox reality television show sets the stage for employees of small companies to determine who is fired from employment in the current economic climate. According to news accounts employees will make the termination decision based on several factors including examining performance evaluations and salary history of the individual. Unlike Donald Trump’s The Apprentice, with his famous words "You're Fired!", Fox puts someone’s wife, partner, children, home, and general well-being at risk.

The current national unemployment rate is at 8.5% and is expected to rise to more than 10% in the summer. Losing a job is not a joyous or comical occasion. Whether you must deliver or should you receive an employment termination notice, it is not a pleasant experience. People with a moral conscience should not find it entertaining to gloat in another’s demise. Someone’s Gotta Go appears to be the new “blood sport” attacking human emotions and the essence of being.

This new show reminds me of the human spectacles played out at the Roman Colosseum where the masses cheered the lions to eat the Christians or gladiators brutally kill one another. Are we fast becoming like the mobs of Rome? Feasting on the personal demise at the hands of co-workers and friends. A television drama highlighting an employment dismissal leaves a person with a sense of self-worthlessness and humiliation in their few minutes of fame before the world. Egging on by program producers and co-workers exposes the evil nature of people as is reflected in audience response and participant interaction in the barrage of past and current reality television shows. Profiting from another’s personal pain, emotional agony, and spiritual weariness through global media outlets reflects a culture that has the moral fabric of a fishnet. It doesn’t hold the dignity of humanity.

Caveat emptor for those who jump on the bandwagon of emotional and psychological persecution of terminated persons. Such a venture could easily hinder the future of the fired, the co-workers, and the business owner. Their self-exposure risks their own reputation in the media and Internet. Professor Daniel Solove, in The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet, says “Our reputation is an essential component to our freedom, for without the good opinion of our community, our freedom can become empty.” Would you want to do business with a small business owner who participated in such a “blood sport” by abdicating their decision making to “blood thirsty” employees? If he or she would lead their own employees into this kind of abuse of power, what might their values hold in store for you as a customer or client or vendor? What are some other ethical leadership implications of this new reality show?

Extra, Extra! News Flash: Congress Hijacked!!!

Yes, the United States Congress has been hijacked. That’s right – emotionally hijacked. In the midst of the AIG executive bonus pay for incompetence, the House and Senate passed bills to tax the bonus pay at 90 percent. Keep in mind Congress was aware of these legally binding bonuses for incompetence in fall of 2008. Congress or Treasury (there’s a lot of finger pointing at each other) placed a grandfather clause for inclusion of bonuses in the recently passed budget. It’s not surprising that the press and the public read the legislation with OUTRAGE! Congress has now responded like a five alarm fire, because they passed the budget without reading it and slipped in the bonus exemption. This sounds more like a Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy escapade.

Emotional hijacking, in this case, occurred due to lack of critical thinking and deliberation of the issues that would impact the American economy. The American people are now faced with a gargantuan leadership void in the midst of this financial debacle. It has been one knee jerk reaction after another between the White House, Treasury, and Congress. To be emotionally intelligent one needs to be aware and knowledgeable rather than acting with political expediency. Hasty and uninformed decision making renders political leadership and moral leadership as oxymoron.

One of the hallmarks of sound leadership is being emotionally and socially aware. Psychologist Daniel Goleman says that emotional intelligence is more important than having a lot of smarts. Emotional intelligence provides a steadiness on a well-planned course of action in the face of crisis. Steady at the helm of American leadership on the rough sea of this financial fiasco is not what we are experiencing. From my Navy days, you turn the ship into the raging stormy waves in order to avoid being capsized. So far, the sea change of waves overwhelms Congress.

The famous theorem of the great philosopher Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does,” has been proven by Congress. The bills to tax the bonus pay are most likely unconstitutional. If the bonus pay tax becomes law, then a serious threat to American democracy exist. That means that Congress would have set the precedent to change law with penalties being retroactive and overriding any previous law at the whim of an emotional hijacking. Greed is the cause of the financial crisis.
However, it is a lack of moral leadership that is at the root.

I have suggested to my graduate students that perhaps Congress should enroll in our Graduate Certificate in Leadership and Ethics. What do you think? What about a grassroots campaign to get rid of all senators and congressmen/women who served more then ten years? Where will we find moral leadership?

Ethical Bankruptcy in a Financial Meltdown

Economic pressures, fear of an uncertain economic future, keeping up with the Joneses, entitlement attitudes, and pure unadulterated greed are some of the excuses that have made the workplace more vulnerable to theft. As a result of the worsening American economy, The Wall Street Journal recently reported a surge in employee embezzlement and theft. Paper clips, copiers, office furniture, and billions of dollars taken are samples of the many and varied items employees feel compelled to take for personal use or resale. My niece, an accountant, recently embezzled $160,000 from a Mississippi furniture company. When asked why, she was quoted as having said, “to give my children and husband what they wanted.” An Austell, GA municipal court worker took $121,000 over about a six-year period “to pay bills.”

The mind’s power to rationalize convinces us to believe what we want overriding our moral conscience. To tell oneself often enough and long enough that we need, deserve, have been cheated out of, victimized, are owed, each marginalizes our emotional and moral intelligence. Moral decisions should not be made in a vacuum. In other words, moral dilemmas ought to be made with critical thought and reflection. We are tempted to shut out the voice of conscience when our desires for gratification appeal. When faced with strong temptations of unethical behavior, I’ve heard the voices of my dad and uncle say, “Tommy, you be a good boy now, you hear.” Long deceased, their voices are still clear in the moral conscience of this Baby Boomer.

Within any business, governmental, and non-profit organizations, there ought be a voice to remind people of their moral responsibility. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (for public companies) and Federal Sentencing Guidelines (for ALL other organizations) call for an ethical culture. This places an imperative for ethics education and training for all in organizations. Obviously, organizational leadership has to first to step up to the plate to make this happen. Being reminded of the consequences of ethical misconduct affirms expectations and multiple costs. What are some ways to increase moral awareness?

1. Compliment associates on good character traits exemplified in their work.
2. Openly discuss ethical dilemmas.
3. Develop and conduct regular training on ethics.
4. Have associates to take turns teaching the ethics learning session.
5. Openly discuss ethical misconduct incidents. This alleviates the much of the gossip and rumor mill, which prolongs disruption.
6. Create an atmosphere of transparency.

No one is one 100% ethical 100% percent of the time. However, it is prudent to be cognizant of behavioral patterns of ethical misconduct. As Deputy Barney Fife stated to Sheriff Andy Taylor, in The Andy Griffith Show,” “Andy, you better nip it the bud right now.” These recommendations and other measures help to mitigate the costs of ethical misconduct for organizations, associates, and families, which can be substantial. The costs of ongoing ethics education are an investment in the ethical culture of your organization.

Doubt: Perception or Reality

The arts are often laden with moral values that reflect life. Paintings depict historical events, music records the spirit of the times, and cinema films the stories of human dilemmas. These mediums of art express the ethos of the human condition.

The movie Doubt challenges our mental and emotional presets of moral values. Our preset values and appearances can lead to a conclusion that might be right or wrong. Perhaps, there’s something in between in moral decision-making. Doubt definitely sets forth a situation in which critical thinking is required rather than jumping to conclusions.

The setting for Doubt is in 1964 at a Catholic school in New York. Sister Aloysius Beauvier, played by Meryl Streep, suspects that Father Brendan Flynn, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, has an unnatural interest in the school’s first young black student, Donald Miller. Sister Aloysius, as principal, rules sternly by fear, while Father Flynn, St. Nicolas’s parish priest, demonstrates a caring and light-hearted nature. The young rookie teacher, Sister James, played by Jamie Adams, tells Sister Aloysius of her perception of Father Flynn’s personal attention to Donald. Sister Aloysius sets her sights on ousting Father Flynn from St. Nicholas without an ounce of proof before getting to the truth of the matter. Amid allegations, Father Flynn stands his ground as the leader and moral voice of the parish. Both appear to seek the moral highground. Doubt stimulates much discussion and debate about moral values and how we make moral decisions.

As the movie progresses the dialogue increases your doubt as to who is right. The protagonists do verbal battle to the end. An example follows:
Father Brendan Flynn: You haven't the slightest proof of anything!
Sister Aloysius Beauvier: But I have my certainty! And armed with that, I will go to your last parish, and the one before that if necessary. I'll find a parent.

Is Sister Aloysius being over protective? Has her perception of Father Flynn’s behavior warranted of allegations? Is Father Flynn simply trying to make the first black student feel included, accepted, and successful? Was Father Flynn innocent with Donald, but guilty with other students? How much influence has Sister James on Sister Aloysius? Do our lenses of life experiences and presets color our perception against fact or evidence? Does perception determine moral reality?

Front Page Failure vs. Inside Page Success

In Friday’s Wall Street Journal two leaders were featured. Across the top of the front-page headlines, American Express CEO John Thain's ousted from Bank of America was emblazoned. On page B3 lower left hand corner, Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, was forgoing the annual bonus along with other executives. What a contrast with Thain’s recent demand for $10 million bonus and spending $1.22 million for his office renovation. Schultz not only did not earn a bonus based on recent performance, he has not had a salary increase in five years. Certainly, Schultz is well paid. However, his pay incentives are based on his ability to perform. Why wasn’t the news of Schultz’s accountability emblazoned across the front of the Wall Street Journal? Accountability and responsibility are character traits that Americans want to see.

If we want to change our thinking and attitudes, the positive character traits and ethical behaviors of CEOs, Members of Congress, and other leaders need to be hailed. I know, bad news and personal moral shortcomings make news and sell papers. However, there appears to be a sense of aurora of fame, glamour for being unethical and demonstrating hubris. Thain has demonstrated no shame in asking for what he perceived he deserved for failure of ethical leadership and critical thinking.

Where is the sacrifice? Where is accountability? Abuse of power and of the people’s money isn’t only in corporate America. A lack of sacrifice is pervasive in small towns, small businesses, and non-profits. The small private Beaufort Academy, Beaufort, South Carolina is laying off teachers based on personalities and keeping the top heavy administration in tact without any salary reductions while simultaneously telling parents that their children’s education will be better than ever. Not only was administration drinking the Kool-Aid, they were trying to dispense it to the parents. Why is it that administration, executive management, and other leadership positions do not take care of those for whom they are responsible? These people are more concerned about their image and short-term personal ambitions than the long-term progress of Beaufort Academy's vision and the needs of students, parents, and teachers. The moral objective should focus on what we can do to save as many jobs as possible, personal sacrifices included. Where is authentic leadership? Why not hail leaders who do what is right?

The Ethics of Selfishness: Egoism

The History Channel began 2009 with the showing of Seven Deadly Sins – pride, envy, lust, anger, gluttony, sloth, and greed . Perhaps the History Channel is reminding us of past excesses in 2008 and gives warning for 2009. Most poignant for our times in the series was the sin of greed. I am reminded of a Cumming, GA housing development company, Wellstone Communities, with whom I did consulting work for in 2006. My role was to provide quality of life initiatives for families in the new Bluffton, South Carolina community. Wellstone Communities was selling new homes like hotcakes to qualified and unqualified buyers. After briefing the new Wellstone chief executive officer about the initiatives to improve people’s quality of life, he quipped to me, “I don’t give a damn about people. We are here to make as much money as possible.” At that moment, my role in helping people ended. This proclaimed Christian company’s tagline of building community and families had ceased and money had become their god. It is January 2009 and Wellstone has completed bankruptcy hearings. First United Bank and Trust Company in Texas is suing the Wellstone corporate officers for $50,000,000.00. Perhaps, Earl’s law of karma, from the TV show My Name is Earl, has come full circle for them.

We have seen the greed of homeowners lying about their income and assets to buy homes. Mortgage lenders have approved loans for unqualified people and people with no income. Investment banks bought bundled mortgage loan packages (good and many bad loans). Congress thwarted lending restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans for poor applicants. Now there is the expectation that government will bailout many debtors such as banks, auto industry, foreign companies, etc., with little consequence and hardly any accountability. Even pornography publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis have asked Congress for a 5 billion dollar bailout saying they feel the financial pinch. For this epoch, the prevailing zeitgeist is egoism, acting in one’s own self-interest.

Some argue that bailouts are necessary to save our economy. But does it enable the irresponsible behavior of poor financial management? Others argue to allow the free market economy to run its course regardless of the consequences. The strongest and most innovative will survive like pruning a tree. Both strategies, which are polar opposites, could be devastating to the American quality of life. This is a complex high-risk financial venture. It appears that the focus is how the government can ease the financial pain of Americans, thus escaping our ethic of responsibility. Is the problem about money or is it about moral values? Should our national, corporate, and local leaders be reflective on moral accountability instead of pointing the finger? Do financiers have the courage to examine their motives? Regardless of the financial fix to our current economic problems, who is heralding the moral fix to the root causes of this debacle or will we just continue down the primrose path?

Tom Creely, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Leadership