The meeting focused on redefining leadership and followership, emphasizing the importance of understanding their synergy and shared outcomes in organizational behavior. Discussions covered various research projects, including studies on implicit theories, followership preferences, and the challenges of measuring agreement between leaders and followers. The team also explored the influence of life experiences on leadership development and the need for better collaboration between practitioners and scholars in the field.
Redefining Leadership and Followership in Co-Creation
A discussion centered on the importance of redefining leadership and followership as a co-creation process, emphasizing the agency, identity, and characteristics of both roles. The traditional hierarchical view of leadership was critiqued, with an argument that followership should be studied as a rank, a state, or a skill. It was also noted that much research on followership may be hidden within team research, suggesting a need for further exploration and collaboration.
Introducing New Leadership and Followership Definitions
A discussion was initiated about a paper that introduced new definitions of leadership and followership. One participant asked for the source of these definitions, which was agreed to be shared. There was enthusiasm about the paper’s focus on leadership-followership synergy, highlighting that leadership studies often remain stuck on the ‘hero leader’ concept. Suggestions were made to integrate followership into leadership discussions and research to shift the field’s focus.
Heroism, Leadership, and Followership
The concept of heroism in relation to leadership and followership was debated, with an emphasis on finding common ground and avoiding exclusionary approaches. Concerns were raised about the definition of heroism and whether it effectively captured leadership or followership. Another perspective suggested viewing followership as a skill or craft, reinforcing the idea that everyone is both a leader and a follower at different times.
Understanding Followership in Public Companies
The importance of understanding followership in a public company was discussed, referencing existing research on organizational dynamics. The concept of the 'anatomy of followership' was introduced, focusing on observing followers' actions when they are in that role. A current study using story completion methodology and qualitative data was highlighted, with plans to present findings at an upcoming conference. Additional research on differentiating followership based on voluntariness was also shared, particularly in the context of student engagement in story-based studies.
Implicit Leadership and Followership
Several research projects were discussed, including implicit leadership theory, implicit followership theory, and implicit peer theory. One study examined why people follow bad leaders, specifically tyrannical ones, finding that about 30% of participants had a preference for such leaders. This preference was linked to growing up in high-conflict families, where a strong leader was perceived as a solution to chaos. Another theoretical paper was mentioned, focusing on reframing outcomes in organizational behavior.
Collectives in Organizational Behavior
The conversation addressed the outcomes of collectives in organizational behavior and psychology, emphasizing shared leader-follower outcomes. Four key dimensions were introduced:
Synergy (collaborative performance)
Chemistry (leader-follower relationships)
Presence (physical and mental availability)
Professionalism (quality of output)
A point was made that traditional outcome measures often place blame on either leaders or followers, whereas an integrated approach would be more effective. The idea of competency models for followers was also discussed, with a suggestion to use a Venn diagram approach to identify shared and distinct skills between leaders and followers.
Leadership Concepts and Attachment Theory
The challenge of measuring agreement between leaders and followers was discussed, noting that self-evaluations often differ from external assessments. A study was referenced that traced leadership development back to early childhood, emphasizing the role of family dynamics in shaping leadership concepts. The conversation also touched on how leadership and followership are not linear processes and suggested that attachment theory could be a useful framework for further study.
Improving Collaboration in Leadership Dynamics
The need for better collaboration between practitioners and scholars was emphasized, particularly in measuring synergy between leaders and followers. A paper co-authored by an academic and a practitioner was mentioned as an example of how both perspectives can enhance understanding of team dynamics. The discussion reinforced the idea that more objective measures are needed to analyze leader-follower relationships effectively.
Leadership Preferences and Evolutionary Roots
The influence of life experiences on leadership and followership development over time was explored, with a focus on how age and life stage impact leadership preferences. A question was raised about why individuals without experience of positive leadership might be drawn to tyrannical leaders. The response highlighted the evolutionary roots of leadership preferences, as well as the impact of social and peer pressure. A reference was made to prior research on followership and the role of inner circles in leadership.
The discussion concluded with an eagerness to continue these conversations at the upcoming conference.