I may have mentioned before that I don't really like leaders ...
and that I reckon that most of the stuff written about leadership does nothing to help organisations or ordinary people, but does everything to help leaders get their own way. Our theories of leadership nearly always contain the subtext: "This guy's your leader, listen to him, he's special" or "Trust him .. you know he knows best" or "He's specially gifted .. and called by God to be your leader"
(by the way, yes the use of the masculine was deliberate)
So I don't really like leaders and I don't like the stuff written about leadership but I do believe organisations need leadership! Can I square that circle?
Well not in this post, because today, ladies and gentlemen, I come in praise of
Followers TA_DAAAAAA!!!!! (roll of drums!)
Seems to me that people give very little attention to followers. They're just there to do what they're told (or lead) to do! Now be good there and run along now! I've designed a one day workshop on how to be a creative follower! (nobody's bought it, they're spending too much on courses for leaders .. but there are more followers than leaders... but, of course, followers aren't important 'cos they just do what the leader says. (pull the other one it's got bells on it! huh!! :-)
So, what makes a good follower? Four things I think
Being helpfully subversive: don't take no for an answer, find ways of experimenting trying out, testing, where you won't be caught. Work out the weaknesses of the system so that you can find ways of 'breaking' the rules without being caught (at least until you've proved your ideas right!). But beware of being subversive on your own account, people don't tend to forget! We need to encourage people to experiment, explore, try out. We need to learn how not to hold so tightly on to what currently exists that we obstruct healthy subversion.
Being coherent in diversity this is linked to the previous point and is the balance to it. subversion that divides will help no one in the long run. But at the same time, we have an unhealthy 'need' for unity. We speak of 'shared visions', common values, we speak of unitary team goals, culture, mission statements etc. as if people were simple enough to fit into one jelly mould. If you haven't noticed already, I'll let you in on a secret: the world is a pretty messy and complex place. By and large the world can cope with a bit of disunity, it can cope with diversity but ultimately that diversity will be shaped by a coherence within an organisation, if the organisation (and those people who make it) is to flourish. But coherence doesn't mean doing what the boss says, all agreeing to everything, all believing every jot and tittle in the same way. Coherence is a negotiated, debated, cobbled-together relationship that is always on the move. It is about acknowledging the value of others so that as I pursue ideas that excite me; I listen out to avoid doing things that obstruct others and I find ways of moderating my actions in conjunction with others to give them space for their dreams.
Seeking to influence There is NO SUCH ACTIVITY CALLED MANAGING! I'd better repeat that 'cos it's going to surprise some people. There is NO SUCH ACTIVITY CALLED MANAGING (come to think of it there is no such activity as leading either!). There is only persuasion, there is only influence. I do not manage John or Mary; I seek to persuade them to undertake some task.
Now this is crucial, because if I lead or manage someone I expect them to do as I ask (say) - even if I do that in a nice, kind, coaching, democratic sort of a way! However, if I am seeking to persuade them to do something I need to think carefully about their aims, values and current activity. I need to listen to them, shape my requests and suggestions in ways that will be attractive to them. There is only persuasion and negotiation, even when it's dressed up as a command. After all, "I can sack you" is really only a negotiating ploy!
being tentatively assertive oh come on, Caroline that's nonsense - an oxymoron! No, to be assertive is to take action, to avoid hanging about, all that I have said above is not a championing of consultative stagnation, collaborative constipation or analysis paralysis. We need to act, but we need to act in a way that can be modified, added to or developed by those we work, hope or worship with. Our actions need to be tentative, not in the sense of hesitant, but in a sense of their ownership being porous, open to the creative contribution of others. Our actions should contribute to the onward course of our community's journey not complete it.
I'd like to be an follower like that!
and there's one other reason that I'd prefer to be a follower than a leader, a person ..
Jesus Christ
"Helpfully subversive" is good, but "tentative assertiveness" -- that's great!! Thanks for those phrases!
Posted by: ConradGempf | July 02, 2005 at 03:33 PM
what a great post Carloline, thank you. Jason.
Posted by: Jason Clark | July 02, 2005 at 05:04 PM
Way off topic, but has your blog layout suddenly changed? I lost my templates and had to create some new layouts (for Pilgrim's Progress). Typepad tell me they're working on it ...
Posted by: Richard L | July 05, 2005 at 10:02 PM
I changed it - I so liked your new layout that I went looking for new colours and this is what I got. what do you all think? I like the colours and I like the coloured sides, but I wonder if the actual size of the blog is a bit narrow, so it involves a bit too much scrolling
Posted by: Caroline | July 05, 2005 at 11:00 PM
Amen Sister!
What a great way to put it all. I've had a gut full of the 'I'm in authority, so do as I say' too. I mean 'What?!!!'. Such a hangover from the time Constantine became 'head of the church' and people went to church to curry favour and gain position.
Not that I have any answers you understand, but I am beginning to think that 'It's the end of the church as we know it'.
Umm, with regards to new blog, I think it probably is a bit narrow. Sorry.
Posted by: Ruth S | July 07, 2005 at 04:40 PM
Ooh...you're back! Yesterday whenever I tried to visit I got an error message, which was frustrating given your email alert to this post.
This resonates madly with me...I upset the ABM selectors at my first conference because I wasn't able to say that my calling to ordained ministry included a calling to leadership.To influence, yes, to mutual exploration, to enthusing...all of that.
But I've always struggled with the concept of leadership and rejoiced that I've not spent any time in the sort of church where a dictatorial model holds sway.
Now that I'm in full-time paid ministry, I guess I can see that the current pattern needs someone who is accountable,willing to take responsibility for the growth and welfare of our Christian community and our engagement with the world outside. Does that equate to leadership? Not if the L word implies imposing a vision...can't be done fruitfully, I'm sure of that. But setting people on fire with it? Taking risks with them, and not knowing what we'll end up with?
Allowing God to be creative with all of us? Yes please.
Is that an abdication speech???!
Posted by: Kathryn | July 09, 2005 at 11:33 AM
I don't think so Kathryn, but there is a skill (that is something that needs to be practiced) in letting others lead us, in noticing the ideas (from others) that will lead us.
I don't think that it is easy, but I wonder if it might be a somewhat less lonely road than some ministers walk
Posted by: Caroline | July 09, 2005 at 11:40 PM
hey caroline. every decent leader would give blood for followers like these!! and in fact they wouldn't be bad characteristics for decent leaders either...
Posted by: maggi | July 10, 2005 at 09:45 AM
Aha!? Perhaps that's the point, perhaps our focus on 'leaders' is the very problem that creates the passive followers we expect?
I'll blog about subject-object relations (Que? I hear you all ask) later today.
Posted by: Caroline | July 10, 2005 at 10:30 AM
...here, here! I'll drink to all that...inside and outside communion (of all kinds)!!! PLEASE keep writing on this subject...I need to learn from you...and with you. May I follow? I hope so. You are sharing thoughts that need to be enhanced. Wonder what you and the Maggi could whip up together? :) I/we need your wisdom...and creative thinking...on this crucial topic. Thank you!
Posted by: Wes Roberts | July 10, 2005 at 05:48 PM
PS...the new look is splendid...engaging.
Posted by: Wes Roberts | July 10, 2005 at 05:49 PM
good ideas - if there is one thing that is hard it is in trying to lead a blancmange. people say leading people with opinions is like trying to herd cats, but giving direction to an apathetic morass of indecision is even harder.
i also wonder if being a good leader is being releasing enough to allow your followers to be like this - ie, you have to be fundamentaly out of control in your church/company/family, etc
Posted by: rob | July 11, 2005 at 08:45 AM
I think that the control issue is an important part of situtation,
but somehow, gradually, we need to move away from a situation where A leader is so important, and frankly the first change would be for those in leadership positions to consider how they might change relations so as to be lead more
Posted by: Caroline | July 11, 2005 at 08:56 AM
Hi Caroline - eventually got here and it's well worth it. Loved your definition of 'coherence'.Plenty to think further about in time.
Posted by: hopefulamphibian | July 12, 2005 at 02:26 PM