True followership is an act that is given in support of the goals or ideals of another.  The intention or purpose of a follower is to contribute to the success of a leader (or to a movement, an ideal, a goal, etc.).    The implications of this idea are important as much for what they say followership is not as for what they say followership is.

Followership is not, with respect to Dr. Pitron, Mr. Useem and others, leadership.

Now I know I am walking a thin line here, and the distinctions are subtle, but I feel they are important enough to pay attention to because the differences are primarily about intention.  If the purpose of a follower’s actions are the pursuit of leadership opportunities, or preparation for future leadership, then the intention of the action becomes self-centered.  However, followership, by definition, is an other-centered activity.  The follower’s purpose must be centered on the success of the leader.

This is not to say that practicing followership does not provide any preparation for leadership.  Nor that a pool of excellent followers is a poor place to fish for future leaders.  Quite the contrary in fact.  Those that serve most faithfully, those that best exhibit the qualities of excellent followers, often also embody the characteristics of excellent leadership.  Again, though, the distinction is subtle but all-important.  A person who effectively acts like an excellent follower for the purpose of obtaining something for him or her self (a position of leadership) is likely to bring that same self-serving intention into their leadership.  It is the intention that is key, and excellent followership is characterized by an intention to contribute to the success of the leader.

I’ve been thinking lately about what I think are the characteristics of good followership. There are lots of good sources for considering the characteristics of good leadership, but what about the other side of the equation?  I’ve come up with a tentative list and hope to flesh out some of these thoughts in the coming weeks.

• Humility
• Loyalty
• Faithfullness
• Diligence
• Priorities that are aligned with the leader
• Good stewardship
• Integrity
• Intentionality – followers decide to follow
• Sacrifice – there is always a cost involved in following
• Honesty – the ability to appropriately speak truth to power

There are a few characteristics that seem like bonuses to me.  Things that may not really be necessary for good followership, but may be for great followership.  Sort of like icing on really good cake.  Not absolutely necessary, but can really enhance the experience.

• Fondness
• Passion
• Succession or replication – developing more great followers
• Servanthood – a pretty charged term in some circles that probably merits more thought

There is actually one more that I’ve been thinking about, but I’m just not sure how I really feel about it.  It is the characteristic of obedience.  I’m still trying to figure out if good followership really requires obedience, or if following, by its nature, is something qualitatively different.  Obedience sometimes carries the implication of force, or at least the lack of choice.  It seems to me that you can force obedience, but I don’t think you can force followership.

Two armies gathered for battle on opposite sides of a broad plain. As the soldiers set up their camps and built their fires, each army pitched a large tent just out of reach of the enemy’s arrows. In these large tents, the leaders, officers and rulers gathered to hear counsel, debate ideas and draw up battle plans. The tents were large, in order to accommodate the various groups of strategists, informers, lieutenants and sub-commanders. Since the armies were equal in size, in weaponry, in courage and in ferocity, the battle was surely to be determined by planning, strategy and leadership.

During the day, a crow flew across the plain and into the tent of the eastern army’s leaders. The crow landed on the table in the center of the tent, voiced one loud, piercing screech, then flew up onto one of the supports in the top of the tent, where he stood watching the leaders debate their strategies and make their plans. Before long, those in the tent began to feel ill. The sickness took them quickly, and within the hour, everyone in the tent was dead.

The western army’s scouts had seen the entire course of events play out in the eastern army’s tent, and when, after the last man in the eastern tent had died, the crow emerged and began flying toward the west, the scouts called out the alarm. The leaders of the western army quickly pulled the flaps of their tent shut and secured them tightly. From within the safety of their tent, they could hear the crow flying back and forth, screeching and cawing in frustration. Smugly, they continued to make their plans, confident that, with the demise of the eastern army’s leadership, the battle would easily be theirs.

Some time later, the calling of the crow began to grow distant and faint, until it could no longer be heard. With the crow gone, the western army’s leadership emerged from their tent to discover that every one of their soldiers was dead.

Leaderless, the eastern army became undisciplined and chaotic. Their efforts were disorganized, the movements of their companies and regiments were uncoordinated, and their actions proceeded under no coherent plan or direction. When the sun rose the following day, the attack they launched against the western army, though zealous and enthusiastic, was possibly the clumsiest, most inept military action of all time.

The western army, with the benefit of its unparalleled planning, brilliant strategy and exceptional leadership was decimated in a matter of minutes.