Obolensky’s model, pictured in Figure
9.5 illustrates the effects of follower behavior in relation to how leaders might
react. In the illustration, if the
follower asks for advice this can demonstrate low skill to their leader. This will result in the leader being
concerned. If the leader is concerned,
they will typically take on a more hands-on approach with the follower. If a leader takes a more hands-on approach, a
follower’s confidence can be lowered and ultimately the follower will believe
he has to defer more to his leader (Obolensky, 2014).
In my organization, the cycle doesn’t
quite happen as it is illustrated in the Oblensky model, but close. Recently a lot of emphasis on exceeding
targets has come to play. We
unquestionably had the worst team meeting I have ever participated in in almost
three years. Basically our leader said
that our efforts were not 100%, there was more we could be doing, and that we
needed to figure out what was wrong and essentially fix it. We were asked why we were not meeting our
goals but with each explanation she steadfastly declined to accept what she was
told. It got to the point where no one
spoke up because there was nothing more that we could say. If we knew how to fix the issues ourselves,
we would have done so. In previous
meetings and brainstorming sessions we proposed and implemented new
strategies. Our leadership proposed and
implemented strategies for us as well.
We were all working together (so we thought) to overcome the obstacles
in our way. Leadership had been
concerned for some time over our team performance. They did in turn take a more active approach in
implementing strategies they felt would be effective. This in turn has caused moral to
decline. Our team feels defeated. When you give your best effort, honestly and
are told your effort is not good enough, that is demoralizing. While we are not necessarily deferring to our
leadership at this point in our day to day functions, we are increasingly aware
(because we have been told) that if the performance does not increase it could
have serious implications on our futures and negatively impact the
university. The main issue we face as a
team are the expectations placed on us by leadership. Goals are established 8-9 months prior to an
academic year. These goals increase with
each year regardless of any external environmental factors that might affect it
such as government shutdowns, economic downturns, or military conflicts. As an organization it seems unrealistic that
you would increase a goal you didn’t meet the year before and expect to exceed
it? The same for the following year, it’s
like fighting an uphill battle that cannot be won.
Kelley (1988) wrote “What
distinguishes an effective from an ineffective follower is enthusiastic,
intelligent, and self-reliant participation—without star billing—in the pursuit
of an organizational goal. Effective followers differ in their motivations for
following and in their perceptions of the role. Some choose followership as
their primary role at work and serve as team players who take satisfaction in
helping to further a cause, an idea, a product, a service, or, more rarely, a
person. Others are leaders in some situations but choose the follower role in a
particular context. Both these groups view the role of follower as legitimate,
inherently valuable, even virtuous” (para. 11).
I see this in my team. We have a
team leader who we all work under. She has
certain tasks that she performs in place of our director. She is both a leader and a follower. For all intents and purposes we are all
self-managed followers. As a team we
have seen a change in our leadership in the last few months which brings us to
where we are in terms of moral. Kelley
(1988) wrote “the fact is that many effective followers see leaders merely as
coadventurers on a worthy crusade, and if they suspect their leader of flagging
commitment or conflicting motives they may just withdraw their support, either
by changing jobs or by contriving to change leaders” (para. 23). Support at this time is weaning and there
have been private discussions of evaluating individual future options. This is disappointing because of the level of
commitment on the part of this team, the competence, and the dedication to our
goals. As a team, we are all in.
If I had to create a new circle, I
would begin by establishing realistic, attainable goals. Next in the cycle, I would implement a
systematic method for problem solving. I
would encourage members to gather information or data, analyze the cause and
effect of the information, and then to propose actions based on this. A key factor in this cycle would be to learn
from past experiences and apply those to future context. Engagement would be the next critical aspect
of the new circle. All team members,
followers and leaders should engage one another and discuss issues, concerns,
and solutions. Based on this engagement,
the circle would be completed by providing feedback to group members in an
attempt to improve or modify processes.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of
Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142-148.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex
Adaptive Leadership (2nd.
Ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company
No comments:
Post a Comment