Performance of the Leader as Affected by Followers - Essay Example

Performance of the Leader as Affected by Followers work] INTRODUCTION Leadership is not easily defined and may be understood better through its characteristics, more so in relation to followership (Warren, 2001, Hock, 2001) and performance (Chaleff, 2001). When a person gets others to recognize his guidance as useful, leadership occurs (Warren, 2001). Leadership is then a series of successful events as is true of great leaders who work at maintaining a group of followers. With a special gift of ruling, it is expected of a leader to set a good example, to be a guide, and to give reprimands appropriately (Gilmore, 2007). However, as observed, leadership does not necessarily imply laudable, good conduct as it is entirely possible to induce destructive behavior through crooked ways (Hock, 2001). In Hock's description, the true leaders are those who typify the general sense of the community, "enabling its conscious, shared values and beliefs to emerge and be transmitted from generation to generation" (Hock, 2001). From here comes the belief that a community is eventually directed by the conscious, shared values and beliefs of the individuals of which it is composed (Hock, 2001). This may be exemplified by two leaders that had different types of followers: the non-violent Dr. Martin Luther King and the cruel Adolf Hitler (Warren, 2001). A much better way to understand leader performance as affected by the follower is Hollander's (1997) explanation about the dynamics of leadership. He said that the follower role is expected as one of low power and passive but this is misleading, he believed, because followership is an active accompaniment to leadership. Leaders may be more active, especially in directing, but followers can affect a leader as an "attentive strategic audience," he said. There exists in fact a two-way support and influence that are essential to the leader-follower bond (Hollander, 2007). Such are understood as credit that followers can accord or withhold from their leaders, reflecting their loyalty and trust (Hollander, 1997). This ties up with what Barbara Kellerman (2004) warned as bad followership existing in our systems. In a very real sense, followers lead by choosing where to be led (Hock, 2001), affirming the belief that followers have a way of affecting leader performance. This line of reasoning is maintained throughout this paper. From definitions of leadership and how it occurs, to leadership characteristics, the discussion leads to the leader-follower relationship, also called Inclusive Leadership (CCL, 2007) and particularly describes the "Idiosyncrasy Credit" (IC) Model of Holland (1968) as a cogent explanation of the dynamics of this relationship. The discussion further delves into followership and goes finally to the topic of leadership performance. This is made distinct from optimum organizational performance where ideally the former is made subject to the latter. The paper includes specific examples of bad leaders and follower influence on the topic of idiosyncratic credits (IC) model propounded by Hollander (1964). It finally concludes with the recommendation that followership as a subject of research should be given importance. Leader-follower relationship How relationship develops. Leadership is a field of interaction or a relationship between leaders and followers (Warren, 2001). Such leader-follower relationship ideally evokes the essence of a clear, meaningful purpose and compelling ethical principles (Hock, 2001), where the relationship develops with the leader and the follower connecting to create one, undivided whole. This means there is no leader who can exist without gaining the support of others (Warren, 2001). Conflicts may come at times between leader and follower, partly on account of leaders and followers processing information from their own subjective, internal frame of reference (Warren, 2001). However, an alignment may come between the two when followers identify with a leader because the leader fits the followers' image of what a leader should be (Warren, 2001). Specifically, coming into play is the role of credits given and withdrawn by followers as an indication of their power and influence over the leader (Hollander, 1968). INCLUSIVE LEADERSHIP The "Idiosyncrasy Credit" (IC) Model. One theory that may explain the extent of follower effect on the performance of the leader is the IC model discussed by Hollander (1964). It says that the effects of leader authority are not fixed but determined significantly by the support of followers. Leadership is a two-way influence process according to Hollander (1990), an "inclusive" process where the actions or inactions of both leader and follower help determine the success of the system. The leader is usually seen as the main role player, but followers affect and even constrain a leader's activity (Hollander, 1990). The extent is up to how followers perceive the quality of a leader's performance in the context of their needs and expectations (NYAS, 2007). Deviating from the "leader-centric" focus on leader qualities that have stood for a long time (NYAS, 2007), the IC model suggests that these "idiosyncrasy credits" come from two major sources of follower perception: competence in the main group task, and living up to expectations as a sign of loyalty to the group. The Hollander (1964) model further says that these credits may be used to take needed initiatives, but may be forfeited for failure, incompetence, abuse and self-serving behaviour An example on this aspect could be Meles Zenawi, the Ethiopian prime minister. Meles has often been lauded as an exemplar of good government even by the press. But it turns out that Meles is in favor of democracy only when people are voting for him (New York Times, 2005). With his government having a record of harassing journalists, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) of New York wrote Meles that it was "deeply troubled by his government's harassment and censorship of journalists." (New York Times, 2005). As expected, in terms of follower support from the press, Meles did not anymore enjoy favourable press; more so, people turned against him. The model goes further to show a possibility that early signs of competence and conformity on the part of the leader will permit later nonconformity to be better tolerated (Hollander, 1997). One interpretation of this could be that on account of the desires of the leader's followers, the leader may not be expected to come up to public expectations as long as his followers were personally satisfied. Jacob Weisberg (2005) describes Bush's example where his relationship to his followers prevented him from being competent - .. In the spring of 2003, the underlying problem was Bush's relationship to the rightwing constituency that elected him. Bush's debt to his big donors and to religious conservatives has boxed him in and pitted him against the national consensus on a range of issues. It has proven impossible for Bush to satisfy both the militant conservative base and the eternally moderate US electorate. Bush's performance, as described above, was clearly constrained by his followers from many sides. In Hollander's (2007)'s view, how credits are spent is of considerable importance. A good example would be Clinton's. Apparently, it was too early for him for any extravagant spending of his limited credit (Hollander, 1997). Before he was ready for that, Clinton had to resign as a fallen leader, the only man popularly elected as President to have been impeached. In "My Life," Clinton repeatedly argues that his impeachment had nothing to do with morality but with a right-wing grab for power (Clinton, 2004). "My Life" showed that Clinton had lost his following. The IC model also says that unused credits can be lost by failing to live up to follower expectations for leader action (Hollander, 1997). These two examples may illustrate this point. In so many words, McMahon (2003) charged John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, of making decisions without consultation and of incompetence. McMahon (2003) claimed - Howard's decisions on national security, industrial relations, health care, education and welfare are all overtly ideologically driven and made with minimal consultation. Instead of true leadership he has doggedly followed the most simplistic economic agenda and mobilized the worst national traits of xenophobia, racism and cultural chauvinism to run Australia like some overeager US offshoot. In contrast, in assessing the 10 years of the prime ministership of Howard, some followers have come clearly to believe that Howard takes unpopular decisions for the greater good. Some refer to "the Howard factor," "a statesman with integrity," "the most successful conservative leader in the world," and many other favorable names. From such descriptions, it is obvious that Howard had more credits to his name (Tory, 2006) and have used them properly despite what McMahon's (2003) and his kind believe. Followership While most authors have paid much attention to leadership, Ira Chaleff (2001) presented followership as an issue that needs to be given attention. First, she said, followership is not honored but leadership is, despite the fact that the subjects are inseparable. Moreover, followers are seen as weak individuals. Yet, followers have an important role to play in affecting the leader's performance positively or negatively. Emphatically, she said there is no training for followership (Chaleff, 2001). This need is underscored in that followers must be capable of brilliantly supporting their leaders, and effectively standing up to them when their actions or policies are detrimental and needed rethinking (Chaleff, 2001).As Kellerman (2004) said, bad leadership exists because of bad followership. Performance A closely related concept to leadership is performance or performance culture. Leaders work in organizations or have groups to lead, and as such have a performance culture to speak of. According to Reid & Hubbell (2005), performance culture is based on discipline that promotes decisiveness and standards of excellence ensuring direct accountability. It appears, however, that there must be collaboration (Gilmore, 2007) and therefore a two-way influence. This is Gilmore's (2007) story - In my current organization, my leader emailed me a mandatory set of goals for my review. I deleted those I didn't agree with, put them in my final document and emailed the final document to her. Upon her receipt of my performance plan, she contacted me and stated that the goals were formatted so that they would fit neatly into my document. I was quite shocked by this. Where was the collaboration Apparently this was a one-way relationship and I am expected to agree with the policies. In Gilmore's (2007) life event, the absence of collaboration assigns her merely in a subordinate-superior relationship, and not in a follower-leader set-up. Earlier, Hock (1999) said that compelled behavior alters relationships to one of superior/subordinate, master/servant, or owner/slave, but not of the leader-follower type. Performance may also be viewed in the pull of personal survival versus group performance. Because of the absence of followership training as emphasized by Chaleff (2001), the orientation of those around the leader often becomes personal survival instead of group optimization. This is underscored because the locus of leader performance is actually in the whole of organizational performance (Chaleff, 2001). Optimum group performance requires that both leaders and followers place the organization's welfare at least on par with protecting their personal interests (Chaleff, 2001). As commonly observed in most groups, the individuals are so concerned with avoiding embarrassment or personal threat that conversations about the need to improve performance are not carried out (Chaleff, 2001). In other words, the leader may then continue doing what he is doing or allowing what should not be allowed. According to Chaleff (2001), if leaders are exceptionally smart, they create environments in which such honest communication is the norm and rewarded. What is true, however, is that most of the time, few speak the truth to the leader, the person who needs to hear the message and do something about it. (Chaleff, 2001). In the middle. Chaleff (2001) makes a distinction between the follower kinds, particularly the senior followers. Traditional leadership theory, she says, puts the responsibility for the leader-follower relationship with the leader, but to her, the burden is on the followers. Consider: In my observation, it often works the other way around. Those who work most closely with the leader, the senior 'followers' if you will, need to assume responsibility for keeping their relationship with the leader honest, authentic and courageous. 'Yes men' need not apply. Chaleff (2001) has underscored the important role of followers, particularly the senior ones in keeping the leader sane and responsible. There is a need for a senior follower with a leader who doesn't use his or her power well to take risks by seeking to change the status quo (Chaleff, 2001). Hock (2001) would place them in the role of courageous followers. He said their placement in the hierarchy of leadership is significant in that lower down in the organization, "they have more direct experience with its people, processes and customers and need to be able to influence the leaders' thinking" conclusion There are leaders whose leadership style impedes organizational growth, productivity or morale (Chaleff, 2001). Their cultural myth charges them to be the change agents, but they are often bogged down in old ways of doing things with which they are comfortable. They are the roadblock, not the road, to innovation (Chaleff, 2001). On the other hand, the true leader's behavior is induced by the behavior of every individual who chooses where they will be led. (Hock, 2001). Hollander's (1964) Idiosyncratic Credits (IC) model explains the dynamics of the leader-follower relationship well in so far as follower influence of the performance of the leader is concerned. The IC model has clarified that it is induced behavior, as explained by Hollander (1964), that is the essence of leader-follower relationships, and compelled behavior is not (Hock, 2001). One who is coerced to the purposes, objectives, or preferences of another is not a follower in any true sense of the word, but an object of manipulation (Hock, 2001). On the other hand, a motivated follower will feel obliged to support (Gilmore, 2007). There is logic as well as justice in the two entities influencing each other for their survival, even though one is expected to lead in decisions. That the behavior of followers is enough measurement on leader performance is propounded by Aubrey Daniels of Management Consulting (2007). In an interview made with him, he said that a different model is necessary for identifying effective leaders, as leadership is defined not only by a leader's behavior, but also by the behavior of a leader's followers. In measuring the performance of the leader, he said, one should look for results produced through correct behavior. Daniels supports the findings mentioned thus far, especially that of the inclusive leadership concept. A leader may function well at one setting and time but may not in another setting under the same condition (Warren, 2001). This is partly because no leader, even the best known, will have the support of all their potential followers. It is a truism that not everyone will follow a leader's initiative (Warren, 2001). On the whole, however, a leader with a following will have to earn "credits" that should validate his initiatives over his followers whose perceptions of his motivation, competence, and the responsibility for success will measure the extent of their support. For as long as a leader has credits then, his influence over his following remains in good standing. On the contrary, depleting the bank of credits for lack of motivation, incompetence, and responsibility for failure may lead his followers to take a path separate from him. This is the explanation of the leader-follower relationship in this contest. An appreciation of the significant role of followership in the performance of a leader is in order. It is recommended that research on this very important aspect be given more attention - perhaps by way of enhancing the Idiosyncratic Credits (IC) model and looking into how it can contribute in managerial trainings. References 'Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) Presents Ulmer Award to Dr. Edwin P. Hollander.' Walter Ulmer Award - 2004 Winner. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.ccl.org/leadership/research/awards/walterUlmer2004.aspxpageId=914 Blank, W. 'The 9 Natural Laws of Leadership. Workforce Performance Resources.' Winter 2001. Reprinted from American Management Association, 1995. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.opm.gov/perform/articles/2001/win01-5.asp Chaleff, I. 'Courageous followers, courageous leaders. New relationships for learning and performance.' Ideas for Leaders December 2001. Executive Coaching Associates. Retrieved February 2,, 2007, from http://www.exe-coach.com/courageous.htm Clinton, B. My Life. ISBN-10: 0091795273, ISBN-13: 978-0091795276, Hutchinson (21 Jun 2004) Gilmore, B. 'Can followers be motivated by leadership styles Creating a submissive corporate culture.' Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.emergingleader.com/article37.shtml Hock, D. 1999, 'Leader-Follower. Future positive.' Birth of the Chaotic Age, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco. Hollander, E. P. 1964. Leaders, groups, and influence. New York: Oxford University Press. Hollander, E. P., & Kelly, D. R. 'Appraising relational qualities of leadership and followership.' Paper presented at the 25th International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, Belgium, July 24, 1992. Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. 1990, 'Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition' American Psychologist, 45, 179-189. Hollander, E. P., Schwager, E., Russeva, K., & Nassauer, F. 'Intangible rewards contributing to leader-follower relations.' Paper presented at the 26th International Congress of Psychology, Montreal, Canada, August 17, 1996. Hollander, Edwin P. 'How and Why Active Followers Matter in Leadership.' In The Balance of Leadership & Followership. Working Papers (Academy of Leadership Press, 1997). Ivey Business Journal. Kellerman, B. Bad Leadership. What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. September 27, 2004. Management Consulting News. Meet the MasterMinds: Aubrey Daniels on What Followers Reveal about Leaders. Interview with Aubrey C. Daniels of Aubrey Daniels International. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from http://www.managementconsultingnews.com/interviews/daniels_interview.php McMahon, P. 'The world cannot afford incompetent leaders in power for the wrong reasons'. Online opinion. Australia's e-journal of social and political debate. 24 April 2003. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asparticle=300 Reid, J. & Hubbell, V. Creating a performance culture. Ivey Business Journal. March/April 2005 The New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS). 'Leadership Perspectives: Influence, Inclusion, and Idiosyncrasy Credit'. Academy events. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.nyas.org/events/eventDetail.aspeventID=2256&date=12/6/2004%207:15:00%20PM The New York Times. 'Good governance gone bad.' November 27, 2005. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/27/opinion/edethiopia.php Tory diary. 'Probably the most successful conservative leader in the world.' Conservative hom.com. March 02, 2006. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2006/03/probably_the_mo.html Weisberg, J. 'What is the Bush legacy.' The Guardian. Tuesday December 13, 2005. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1665837,00.html#article_continue Read More