Who comes first: leader or follower?
The leader-follower relationship has been studied for decades. Fred Fiedler, a leading researcher in industrial and organizational psychology, created a leadership model that suggests that followers’ performance is based on specific leadership styles and different organizational situations. Additionally, the Great
Man theory examines the effect of a leader’s external differences, such as decision-making skills and job-relevant knowledge, and internal differences, such as self-confidence and a desire to lead—all of which influence followers’ behavior. Accordingly, for followers to perform effectively, leaders must accommodate their followers’ abilities and willingness, or their readiness level. This is referred to as situational leadership.
According to situational leadership, there are four types of leaders, whose style is based structure and relationships. A telling leader focuses on the task or technical aspect of a job by dictating work methods while giving little effort to building work relationships. A selling leader not only provides direction but also encourages and fosters work relationships while taking care of employees’ needs. A participating leader focuses primarily on cultivating work relationships, encourages participation among followers and involves them in the decision-making process, all while putting less emphasis on technical aspects of the job. A delegating leader neither focuses on task structure or building relationships. This leader simply delegates responsibilities to followers, giving them freedom to make decisions and complete their work.
There also are four stages of follower readiness that determine which leadership style should be employed to increase organizational performance. Readiness describes followers who are either unable and unwilling, unable but willing, able but unwilling or able and willing. A closer look at both
leadership styles and followers’ readiness, or their maturity level, reveals how effective leaders can be in certain behavioral situations.
Notably, the leader-follower relationship is similar to the parent-child relationship. As a child matures, or becomes ready, the need for a parent to maintain control and build a relationship with the child decreases; the child has become more responsible. When it comes to leaders and followers, as followers attain a level of high readiness or maturity, the leader responds by decreasing control over work tasks and, simultaneously, by decreasing relationship behaviors. Here, the follower has become highly mature and responsible. For example, unable and unwilling followers need a telling leader to create job assignments that are strict and formalized to maintain rigid structure and centralization. Unable but willing followers need a selling leader who not only gives strict job assignments to increase their ability, but also emphasizes interpersonal relationships to create “buy-in.” Able but unwilling followers likely need a participating leader to offer support and encouragement to participate. Ideally, able and willing followers need little supervision and involvement from the leader. By delegating, these followers are at liberty to make decisions and complete assigned tasks independently.
Interestingly, adaptive leadership does not mean getting followers to follow the leader’s wishes; rather, true leadership occurs when leaders can adapt their leadership style to different readiness levels within the organization. The effect of followers’ actions is based upon the execution and effectiveness of leadership behaviors. Regardless of the leadership style used, organizational performance depends on the actions of the followers. So, it seems that the primary focus rests upon followers in the leadership process as opposed to leaders and their effectiveness. Consequently, based on the followers’ readiness level, they can either accept or reject the leader.
So, who comes first: The leader or the follower?