We all know in order to have leaders we have to have followers, which are as important as the leaders are, as they create the leader and they support him in every aspect of his behavior.
On the last slides of the presentation there are the characteristics of a good follower which is stated as follow:
- · To do nothing- to be in no way involved- is to be a bad follower
- · To support a leader who is good- effective and ethical- is to be a good follower.
- · To support a leader who is bad- ineffective and/or unethical- is to be a bad follower.
- · To oppose a leader who is good- effective and ethical- is to be a bad follower.
- · To oppose a leader who is bad- ineffective and/or unethical- is to be a good follower.
The definition that the book gives must be relevant, not everything is white or black, not every leader is good or bad, there must be something in middle and not divided in two opposing categories.
Firstly, I totally agree with the first phase that to be uninvolved is one of the worst attitudes of human race in history of the world but we can have a lot of examples where an ethical following leader of one culture is unethical for another one. For example crusades or jihads which for the time of history where ethical rules of society are proven to be wrong and unethical for the other part of society. And we cannot state that the people that went for war at that time where good followers or bad followers.
Secondly, I totally disagree with the phrase that opposing a leader who is good is a bad follower. Also all leaders can make mistakes as they are also human beings. Sometimes I think opposing somebody even if you are mistaken can lead to a democratic way of leading instead of an autocratic one, when the word of the leader is the rule. I am always more keen on democratic way of leading than the autocratic system.
Finally I think that a good or bad follower is divided by the amount of time or effort that you have been devoted to the case. This is how I divide a good follower from a bad one.
Florian Shushku.
Dear Florian,
ReplyDeleteyour point of view is very interesting and the way how you interpret to not be uninvolved or the definition being god or bad leader.
your writes correct when you say not everything is white or black, but theoretically each leader must prepare also the next generation of leaders that will “replace him”. so, a kind of interaction between leaders and followers.
This approach not only educates the next generation of leaders, but also fulfills the individuals need for self-actualization, self-fulfillment, and self-worth.
br,
Idi Sulo
The past decade has witnessed the emergence of a new generation of programs in which the primary focus is on those who participate, not on those who lead.Although the importance of a good leader cannot be denied, followers also play an equally important, if often overlooked, role in the success of any group or organization.I believe the strength of any team is in the followers and there can be no leaders without followers
ReplyDeleteHi Florian,
ReplyDeleteI agree with the uninvolvement part of your writing, but I think your view of describing opposing a leader who is good is also necessary is flawed. If we take your statement of "nothing is totally black or totally white" as our starting point, we can deduce that no leader is good 100% of the time. But in this case your disagreement with the rule:"opposing the leader when a leader is good is still a bad followership" fails in this case. Maybe we should restate it as opposing the leader at the times when you think he or she is mistaken is good. Still I find your opinion as thought provoking.
Mehmet Zirek