Abstract
Much has been written about leadership in schools, but little mention has been made of followership. The article provides an awareness and foundation for future discussions about school followership. In 1992, Robert Kelly wrote The Power of Followership, which explains and analyses the world of followers and their relationship to leaders. Kelly’s framework provides the groundwork for this article and the important authentic leader−follower relationships that drives the life of a school, with particular attention to the teacher. We move back and forth along this leadership and followership continuum during our lives. Research questions include: Why do people choose to follow? Are there different types of followers? How can the leadership−followership relationship be nurtured in a school? The development of relationships that contribute to leadership−followership will be examined through the application of practical in-school activities with students and staff. Recent teacher feedback from over 400 Canadian teachers suggests that an effective school has established a balanced authentic leadership−followership dynamic that provides opportunities for all members of the school community, regardless of role, to participate.
Authenticity is not an innate quality but a quality that others attribute to you. The paradox is that you need to be who you really are (authentic) while also adapting your behaviours to the situation and/or follower audience. (Hayes and Comer, 2010: 20)
Introduction
Although James MacGregor Burns’ (1978) landmark book Leadership focused on politics and business and introduced the concept of transformational leadership (collaboration toward mutually held goals of leader and follower that benefit both), the relevance of the leader−follower relationship seems a good fit for schools as well. Burns suggests that leader and follower raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality and ethics. Teaching is a moral endeavour. Since then, hundreds of books have been written about various leadership characteristics, styles, outcomes and purposes. In particular, much literature exists related to leadership in schools (Begley, 1999; Fullan, 2010; Glickman et al., 2005; Hargreaves, 1994; Leithwood et al., 1999; Sergiovanni, 1992; Starratt, 2011). Less has been written about followership. But, in order to have leaders, we must have followers, although there are usually many more followers than leaders in most organizations and schools. Simply put, leadership is the act of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal. Begley (2001) describes authentic leadership as ‘a metaphor for professionally effective, ethically sound, and consciously reflective practices in educational administration’ and ‘a genuine kind of leadership − a hopeful, open-ended, visionary and creative response to social circumstances’ (Begley, 2001; http://www.nipissingu.ca/csle/JALE/JALEFrameset-1.htm). Followership is the act or condition of following a leader. Importantly, the concept of authenticity, as related to leadership and followership, is understood as ‘being true to oneself’ (Starratt, 2011: 91; Taylor, 1991: 91). As a former long-time school and district administrator and as a member of the academy, it is the intent of the author to draw attention and raise awareness to the issue of followership in schools, which has received little attention to date. The author is mindful that schools include administrators, teachers, support staff, parents and, most important, students. What do we know about followers in schools? This article will initiate discussion directed toward teaching/administrative staff in particular. However, the impact of followership upon students and others is fuel for another time and another article.
In 1992, followership pioneer Robert Kelly penned a significant text, The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves, which explains and analyses the world of followers and their relationship to leaders. Kelly’s thoughts provide a framework to introduce this brief discussion article while helping to focus upon the important leader−follower relationship that drives the life of a school. In addition, Starratt (2011) carefully reinforces the human dynamic in schools, ‘In schools we live every day with other persons − teachers, administrators, support staff and children’ (p. 74). Starratt speaks about these persons being ‘a gift’ and ‘our responsibility’, and the relationship is reciprocal in that we nurture each other’s potential. A healthy effective school environment can be nurtured through a balance between the leadership−followership interplay. I would suggest that once you assume the mantle of teacher you become a leader (and a follower) in your classroom, school and learning community (Crippen, 2005). Regardless, Kellerman (2008) states, ‘Some of us are followers most of the time and leaders some of the time. Others are the opposite: leaders most of the time and followers some of the time’ (p. xxi).
Additional clarity to the followership discourse has been sustained through recent works, e.g.: Bjugstad et al. (2006) introduce the concepts of followership motivation, values, trust and effectiveness; Chaleff (2009) describes followers as courageous; Goethals and Sorenson (2006) caution us about the role of power in possible manipulation of followers; Hayes and Comer (2010) stress the importance of developing trust and inspiration among followers; Hollander (2009) regards the leadership−followership relationship as inclusive; Kellerman (2008) introduces followers as change agents; Riggio et al. (2008) recognize the role of followers as creators of great leaders. Such ideas have enhanced the earlier works of Greenleaf (1970), who coined the term servant-leadership and the importance of effective followers. Greenleaf (1977) speaks about his reflective writings over a 20-year period on the leadership−followership connection:
They express in different ways my wish that leaders will bend their efforts to serve with skill, understanding, and spirit, and that followers will be responsive only to able servants who would lead them − but they will respond. Discriminating and determined servants as followers are as important as servant leaders, and everyone, from time to time, may be in both roles. (pp. 3−4)
Sergiovanni (1992) recognized moral leadership as bringing out the best in followers, and Spears (1998) identified the characteristics exemplified by servant-leaders and followers. Attention toward the concept of followership has provided recognition to its importance in relation to leadership. It reminds us that we must understand the functions of both leadership and followership in our organizations and that the role of followers and the motivation of followers will have an impact on the effectiveness of the group and the organizational leadership specifically.
Followership seems ripe for further investigation, and this is substantiated by Hollander (2009), who encourages ‘investigation into the relationship between leaders and followers including their needs and expectations and how they may come to be leaders’ (p. 8). Possible investigative questions should include the following, but are not exhaustive in nature: Why do people choose to follow in schools? What is the motivation? Are there different types of followers? And, if so, what impact do these issues have on school life? When does one choose to be a leader and when to be a follower? How can the leadership−followership relationship be nurtured in a school? And to what end? Kelly (1992) opines about followers, ‘Followers at their best, I learned, participate with enthusiasm, intelligence and self-reliance − but without star billing − in the pursuit of organizational goals’ (p. 27) and ‘For most of us, followership represents 70 to 90 percent of our working day’ (p. 29). The article will attempt, first, to respond to Hollander’s (2009) recommendation for additional research into the understanding and value of followership, and second, in order to link related followership (and leadership) research to school practice, examples of both ‘in-school’ teacher and student activities will be provided within the article. The student activities are simply provided to demonstrate the link with the teachers in the classroom. Third, all questions posed will address the concept of followership in schools as part of an authentic leadership−followership relationship.
Followership styles in schools
When focusing on schools, I am led by Starratt’s (2011) observations that we are dealing with ‘human beings; humanity; individuals with their own experiential biographies’ (p. 1). Although schools are about learning, development, values and ethos, I would suggest schools are all about relationships. Authentic relationships require work to build and strengthen and maintain. It is an ongoing and constant issue that must be a priority if a sense of inclusivity, respect, collaboration, transparency and caring is to be developed and valued. Clearly stated, and adding to the introductory definition,
Being authentic does not mean being perfect; rather, it means owning and accepting oneself with whatever talents and whatever limitations and imperfections one has. It also means being ‘up-front’ in one’s relationships, being present to the other person, being there in the now of the moment. (Starratt, 2011: 91)
Schools are about service to students and usually have formal leaders, a principal and, depending on the size of the school, a vice-principal. In this relationship, the principal is the master-leader and often, a new first-time vice-principal is the follower or apprentice. It seems fair to say that the role of vice-principal is learning how to be a strong leader by following the formal leader’s (principal) example. Today, many vice-principals choose to remain in their role. They are comfortable in the ‘second’ formal administrative position in a school. Principals and vice-principals usually divide the administrative responsibilities within the school. It may be worth mentioning that, in very large schools, the principal may be somewhat removed from the rest of the personnel and the vice-principal may be more in direct contact with the school staff. With the move toward democratization in our schools and the use of school teams to develop policy, curriculum, school plans, and school celebrations, the role of team leader and that of team follower has become critical in achieving planned goals and outcomes. It is recognized that power within teaching staff and administration cannot be ignored and it may drive certain types of followership. The team leader may be considered an appointed formal role or simply a voluntary one to help the group gel and then resume more of a collaborative position within the group. Thus, leadership−followership seems to overlap or happen almost at the same time. Closer analysis of each team member or follower or individuals may sort members into one of seven particular follower paths described by Kelly (1992): ‘apprentice, disciple, mentee, comrade, loyalist, dreamer, and lifeway’ (p. 51). If one relates these followership paths to the internal school personnel groupings, there are those who are comfortable with themselves and just want to contribute to the school goals. These disciples can carry the message of a particular school culture and represent the ideas of the formal leader (principal). There are certain ‘rules’ that school staff follow related to issues of safety, i.e. fire drills, bomb threat, earthquake. I would suggest these could fall under the category of disciple. Others want to change themselves through personal growth (mentee). Each year school teachers develop a personal growth plan and study or develop a new skill to strengthen their teaching in the classroom. New teachers are often assigned a mentor to guide them and act as a resource, especially their first year in a classroom. There are also interpersonal and intrapersonal goals of staff. Some aspire to lead. Apprenticeship, as mentioned in the role of vice-principal, is directed toward mastery of specific administrative skills. Comrades enjoy bonding together where many talents are needed to accomplish a goal, such as in a curriculum development committee. ‘Some people follow out of personal loyalty to the leader’ (Kelly, 1992: 71). A particular school principal may have a broad following of staff within a school which may last over several years. These followers can contribute to the success of this particular principal or vice versa − they could contribute to the principal’s demise if the formal leader is not liked. Dreamers follow their own ideas, their guiding force, not necessarily those of the leader. Such staff are ‘outside the box’ and may ‘do their own thing’. The last path is that of the lifeway; the person is convinced this path of service or helping others provides the best or most satisfying way of living.
Lifeways and servant-leadership
Kelly (1992) directly links the seventh path, lifeways, to Robert K Greenleaf’s (1970) philosophy of servant-leadership − an ethical-moral, transformational form of leadership-followership:
The servant-leader is servant first. It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. The best test is: do those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? (p. 7)
Greenleaf (1977) suggests that we are actually on a continuum during our lifetime. At one end of the continuum is leadership and at the other end is followership. We move back and forth along this continuum during our lifetime and neither one nor the other is better. It is only when we stop moving along the continuum we stop growing and learning and remain in status quo. (The author has been directly involved in the study of servant-leadership since 1980.) Thus, if a school is truly developing and growing and learning and is collaborative, then each person is leader and follower at various times. Greenleaf (1998) states, ‘even the ablest leaders will do well to be aware that there are times and places in which they should follow’ (p. 114). Let me share this example. Many years ago while a principal in a K-5 school, the computers went down across the school on a Monday morning. The teacher on staff who was the technical support was absent. No-one else on staff was able to help. Out of complete desperation, I went to the Grade 5 classroom and asked who knew the most about computers and three boys stood up. I then asked which one of them knew the most. Two of the boys turned and looked at the same boy. I then explained the situation. This student then went room to room and by morning recess all the computers in the school were up and running. I was the follower and he was definitely the leader in that situation. Perhaps by understanding the motivation of follower paths, administrators, team leaders and general school personnel may develop greater sensitivity and smoother interpersonal connections within a positive school community. Relationships require an investment of time and energy (Wheatley, 2005), and time for staff interaction is often restricted in schools. I believe that using a few minutes to make connections at staff meetings, in the hallway or on yard duty help staff to know each other better. Allocating specific uninterrupted time periods for additional relationship building is a worthy investment that could fit easily into planned professional development days.
Where are you now?
A simple dialogue between teacher colleagues (also with intermediate-senior students) can reveal personal preferences for circumstances that encourage either leadership or followership and an appreciation for one’s strengths and weaknesses individually and as a group. The question is, ‘Where are you now?’ The development of these relationships may ease the transition into coalitions within a democratic school. Starratt (2011) outlines the workings of school coalitions:
It is usually generated by bringing together of various individuals and groups who have different interests and desires (parents, teachers, custodians, coaches, counsellors, students, and administrators) around a compelling common effort, a purpose that touches upon their common humanity, their common needs, their common aspirations for achieving something out of the ordinary. (p. 83)
In response to school administrator and school superintendent requests and after reading Greenleaf (1977), Sergiovanni (1992) and Starratt (2011), the author initiated a journey of self-discovery within an individual school staff (35 members) and later with a school district of 410 teachers and principals with the following questions:
What is your greatest strength?
How have you used this strength in your daily life?
What is your greatest area of weakness?
How has the weakness caused you problems in the past?
Describe a situation where you were leader.
Describe a situation where you were follower.
Have you a preference? Leadership or followership? Explain your choice.
Describe a situation where you relied upon your moral and/or ethical leadership to deal with a difficult decision?
How do you prepare to make a decision?
How do you react if the decision turns out to be wrong?
Post-activity discussion revealed the commonalities among them. Such a process provided early steps to learning about each other; to building stronger teams; to understanding the strengths within the group; and to understanding themselves and their values. For years the attention has been on school leadership, and it now seems sensible that teachers understand the roles and the types of followers with whom they work each day. Working with school staff may provide occasion for the identification of the seven types of follower paths and related strengths (and areas that need attention). But, because not everyone is confident to speak within a group, hidden talents may remain undiscovered. Hence, opportunities for team members to share their background and demographics in short activities at staff meetings, professional development days and retreats could channel the development of valuable relationships and a new understanding and appreciation for each other. At the outset, participants are reminded to say only what they are comfortable expressing and not to say what they do not want to share. It is useful for all school staff to become aware of the various ages and stages, strengths, challenges and values of the members of their group. Such opportunities can strengthen the connections that bind a school together (Crippen, 2010; Glickman et al., 2005).
Teachers, in particular, seldom have time for self- reflection. Questions that encourage respondents to ‘consider their individual sense of themselves, but also their sense of themselves as a community of educators, learners, and support staff’ (Starratt, 2011: 67) could promote reflective thought. According to Wheatley (2006), and I concur, it is important to tell our stories to each other to reinforce personal connections in the school. The opportunities for school members to participate in the ebb and flow of shared information and to develop greater understanding and appreciation for each other as leaders and followers will reinforce an atmosphere of transparency, trust and authenticity within the school. A small sample of the feedback from the previous self-discovery questions included: A good leader must be a good follower and a good listener. Use your strengths to help rectify your weaknesses. Involve students in having leadership−followership roles in the classroom. Talk about them. How did they feel as a leader? How do they feel as a follower? Leaders and followers are both part of the whole puzzle that makes up our school. The importance of self-awareness, listening to others, sharing decision making, valuing dissonance. I can be myself and I have lots to offer my school community. The roles of leaders and followers constantly change. To continually remind myself of students being on a continuum at the same time as I am.
Such responses seem to support the use of such activities and the investment of time in each other.
Continuing to build relationships
During a recent professional development day session, staff spent an hour, in pairs, working through questions to ‘get to know’ each other. Wheatley (2005) believes that without ‘shared beliefs and desires, people are not motivated to seek out one another and develop relationships. Instead, they inhabit the same organizational and community space without weaving together mutually sustaining relationships’ (p. 102). Some questions in a professional development session that focused participants on understanding each other were suggested by Baron (2010):
When you think of your life’s story and how it unfolded, what people, experiences, or events were critical to your development? (p. 28)
And,
To recall these defining moments, take a walk through the stages of your life, from early childhood, to adolescence, to young adulthood, to the present moment. You could have experienced these defining moments as either strongly positive or difficult, even negative. What thought and memories come to mind? (p. 28)
When the entire staff reconvened, many commented on how much they enjoyed the experience and that they never have had time to engage in this type of deep conversation before. Most importantly, many found similarities in their life stories, a commonality and a comfort level. Within this sharing time, participants could identify when they were followers (and leaders) and why this was the case. Wheatley (2006) agrees: ‘In this world, the basic building blocks of life are relationships, not individual. Nothing exists on its own or has a final, fixed identity. We are all bundles of potential. Relationships evoke these potentials. We change as we meet different people or are in different circumstances’ (p. 170). Also, Kelly (1992) stresses ‘nurturing and leveraging a web of organizational interrelationships’ (p. 165). Further to this, Hollander (2009) indicates that effective leaders are aware of the needs and interests of their followers and that the dynamics of school staff interaction are critical:
In creating teams, treating crises, attending to inequities, reducing conformist pressures, or managing change, it starts with Respect for others, Recognition of their input, and Responsiveness to them. The necessary quality of Responsibility in both directions is also enduring as a basis for leader−follower relations, which engenders approval. (p. 5)
It seems to me that Taylor (1991) clarifies the importance of authentic leadership−followership when he declares, ‘If authenticity is being true to ourselves, is recovering our own “sentiment de l’existence”, then perhaps we can only achieve it integrally if we recognize that this sentiment connects us to a wider whole’ (p. 91). Issues of listening, persuasion, partner inputs and inclusivity of all school stakeholders with an overall recognition and appreciation for individual voice can nurture the entire school environment (Hayes and Comer, 2010; Hollander, 2009; Sergiovanni, 1992; Starratt, 2011) so that everyone will feel valuable, capable and responsible (Crippen, 2005). Chaleff (2009) explains, ‘Two essential elements of relationships are developing trust and then using that trust to speak honestly when appropriate; one without the other is meaningless’ (p. 23). School staff ‘respond positively to leaders who are fair, show concern and get results … humble behaviours along with authenticity result in trust and inspired followers’ (Hayes and Comer, 2010: 135).
Followership questionnaires
Kelly (1992) developed a Followership Questionnaire (pp. 90−97) to help people determine the kind of follower they are and to identify the strengths of the follower and areas that needed improvement. Independent thinking and actively carrying out one’s role were identified as critical to followership in the questionnaire. The brevity of this article does not allow for an in-depth explanation of each, nor where they would fit on the leadership−followership continuum. This topic is fuel for another article. But briefly, five categories of followership (Kelly, 1992: 97) were named:
More recently, Barbara Kellerman (2008) of Harvard also identified five types of followers:
A comparison between Kelly and Kellerman’s lists reveals some overlap/replication/consistency of thought: (1) Isolates and alienated followers prefer not to be involved. (2) Passives and bystanders may simply watch from the periphery. (3) Also, exemplary followers align with both activists and diehards to some degree. (4) Conformists and participants get involved, but for each for different reasons. It seems to me that if the members of a school community have the chance to understand the leadership−followership dynamic that exists in their school then it may promote inclusive, transparent, interaction for all members − an authenticity. Such clarity plays a part in the development of trust and loyalty, mentioned previously, to an organization or school (Hollander, 2009). The relationships within the school form a net of support for teacher, administrator, support staff, student and parent participants. If the relationships within the school are authentic, then the school community will also be authentic − there will be honesty and openness, and a sense of trust and safety will prevail. Wheatley (2006) compares these relationships to a spider’s web:
Most of us have had the experience of touching a spider web, feeling its resiliency, noticing how slight pressure in one area jiggles the entire web. If a web breaks and needs repair, the spider doesn’t cut out a piece, terminate it, or tear the entire web apart and reorganize it. She reweaves it, using the silken relationships that are already there, creating stronger connections across the weakened spaces. (p. 145)
Students and followership
Today, in particular, students collaborate and interact with their peers during group activities and learning experiences. Here students can learn about the concept (Greenleaf, 1970) of primus inter pares (first among equals). These are situations that provide the leadership−followership flow for students which Starratt (2011) describes as opportunities for ‘developing everyone’s unique human resources to fully enact the educating process’ (p. ix). I agree with Kleiner (2008), who emphasizes,
These are the most important groups that students participate in during their high school experience and are what consumes the greatest amount of time and dedication. Outstanding learning is ultimately a collaborative experience between the formal leader (the teacher) and the informal leader−followers (the students). (p. 91)
If students are given the criteria for their assessment, before they prepare their discussion/exercises, this may increase their participation. Students need to be encouraged to be brave and to share their opinions candidly and respectfully, even if they know these comments are not in sync with the teacher or classmates. Students and teachers must always be attentive to the quiet, shy students and allow time for them to give voice and to be included. Educators must become students of their students. When we give another person our attention, our time, we actually honour them and value them by this action (Sergiovanni, 1992). Students, in particular, hunger for this attention. Also, students should ask questions that may be helpful to other students as well as themselves. A cheerful, enthusiastic student may be of assistance to fellow students inside and outside the classroom as a model, or mentor, or even an advocate.
Kleiner (2008), who writes from a higher education student perspective, suggests that a brief class survey be given to students at the end of a semester. The following three questions could provide valuable narrative data toward the expansion and appreciation of authentic leadership−followership:
During the semester, who displayed particularly helpful leadership in work groups you participated in, and what did they do that was effective?
During the semester, who displayed particularly helpful followership in groups you participated in, and what did they do that supported or balanced the leadership that emerged in the group or that was helpful to fellow group members?
How have you contributed to the learning experience of your peers through your leadership−followership role in the classroom? How did you grow as both a constructive leader and a constructive follower through these experiences? (p. 92)
Conclusion
Schools are all about relationships, and relationships are developed, in part, through caring, listening, trust, honesty and collaboration. They are about reaching out to each other − first, by trying to understand and being true to ourselves (authentic) and then by trying to understand and appreciate our colleagues. It’s about telling our stories and realizing how much we have in common and yet how rich we are in diversity. It’s about discussing our values and why we are where we are in our lives and in our schools. It’s about service to the common good. Relationships include leadership and followership and moving back and forth along the continuum. Earlier in this article, the importance of a balance in leadership−followership in healthy democratic schools was emphasized. Kelly (1988) describes and makes clear the importance of these two domains:
People who are effective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to deliver consensus, the verbal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups, the organizational talent to coordinate disparate efforts, and above all, the desire to lead. (p. 142)
And, those in a followership role,
Have the vision to see the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals, and above all, the desire to participate in team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose. (p. 142)
Both are needed in our schools.
In summary, schools are places where leadership− followership succeeds and is mutually reinforced through webs of relationships. Kelly identified seven paths that people may pursue to followership: as apprentice, disciple, mentee, comrade, loyalist, dreamer and lifeways. All such paths may exist in schools and influence various roles. The lifeways may be particularly common in schools because of the nature of service to children, and lifeways connects easily to Greenleaf’s philosophy of servant-leadership. Adults and students may be enriched by their discussion and a focus on this servant-leadership−followership approach and its application to the common good. Both Kelly, in 1992, and Kellerman (2008), 16 years later, identified five types of followers that have many commonalities. Kelly named exemplary, alienated, conformist, pragmatist and passive types of followers. Kellerman recognized diehards, isolates, participants, activists and bystanders as follower types. School staff interplay is strongly influenced by these types of followers and their support, resistance, or laissez-faire attitudes toward school goals/directions. Additional knowledge of the motivation and outcomes of each follower typology would provide valuable insights into the rationale for participant interaction and attainment of a democratic atmosphere. It would be interesting to determine where each of the follower types exist on the leader−follower continuum. Opportunities for staff development exercises that enhance mutual understanding, identify strengths and recognize areas for improvement will help build teams and appreciation for diversity and commonalities. Student leadership−followership can be recognized, encouraged and valued through end of term surveys (feedback) and through providing situations that support student voice in a safe, respectful, classroom.
Together, through the development of authentic leaders and followers − formal and informal − a school may establish a place of stability and harmony where all voices are valued and supported by the web of relationships. It is time to give recognition and attention to followership and the role it plays in schools. This article is a simple call for greater study into the area of followership. Finally, in writing about Leadership for the Twenty-first Century, Joseph Rost (1993) provides direction to us:
To reflect their mutual purposes, leaders and followers must come to some agreement about their purposes. That agreement must be consciously achieved by the interaction of leaders and followers. It must be developed using non-coercive methods. It must be forged in the relationship that leaders and followers have, one which allows followers to influence leaders (and other followers) as well as leaders to influence followers (and other leaders). (p. 121)