Followers Make the Leader : They Have the Last Say in Determining Success

That “L” word--leadership--is in again, and along with it the romantic myth that leaders are the primary reason for all success. This myth is now reflected in the writings about the “transformational” leader who turns followers from nothing into something, from something worse into something better. Whether the myth conjures up Gandhi mobilizing the masses or Patton disciplining out-of-shape recruits into fighting soldiers, leaders are perceived as struggling to bring mightiness out of mediocrity. They motivate, develop, cajole, discipline and overcome resistance from blob-like followers to achieve superordinate goals. In this view, leaders are the molders and followers are the clay.

This sounds nice, but it seldom happens this way except in Hollywood.

After researching followers and leaders for the last five years, I have discovered the powerful role that followers play in making or breaking a leader. We may ignore the way followers can contribute to the leader’s development, but they often are instrumental in “transforming” ordinary people into leaders. Ronald Reagan’s followers, including his wife, played critical roles in transforming him from an actor into President. Similarly, George Bush’s followers transformed him from a wimp into Jekyll-and-Hyde, while Michael Dukakis’ followers transformed him from a cardboard middle-class manager into an upwardly mobile immigrant.

Though we may not like to admit it, most of us are followers more often than we are leaders. Even if we have subordinates, we still have bosses. For every committee chair we hold, we sit as a “follower” member on other committees. In fact, 90% of us will spend 90% of our time following. As followers, most of us are reasonable, responsible adults who succeed in our lives without the need for or help of a strong leader. We do not think of ourselves as clay to be molded, thank you.

When would-be leaders talk about “transforming” us, we justifiably get upset. Rather than be transformed, we set about transforming the upstart, making him or her see that our contributions are indispensable for success. When Don Petersen ascended to the leadership of Ford Motor Co., tough talk toward the employees filled the plants. The workers responded by rearranging the letters on the cars rolling off the assembly line. One car read DORF, another spelled DROF. Petersen got the message and instituted one of the most sweeping worker-participation programs in corporate history. The followers not only transformed the leader but also the company from a financially troubled one to the most profitable U.S. auto maker. A recent poll of CEOs proclaimed Petersen America’s most effective business leader.

If would-be leaders are unable to be transformed, then followers withdraw support. Nowhere is this more clearly in evidence than in politics. When Donald Regan became secretary of the Treasury, he talked openly about imposing private-industry discipline on the civil-service bureaucracy. His new followers were not fond of the inference, but Regan was blind to their viewpoint. So they actively held back their best effort, making his term as secretary a near-disaster for the economy. When I asked a career Treasury official how Regan was undermined, he said, “We let him do everything exactly as he wanted, knowing that what he wanted would kill him politically.”

Occasionally, followers can bring about success despite an ineffective leader. Many a Vietnam veteran can recall how the enlisted troops captured a key position or avoided massive casualties by disregarding what the green second-lieutenant ordered. Most of us can recall times when as followers we were responsible for the organization’s success, even though the leader got all the credit.

Now we are hearing about followers succeeding without the so-called benefit of leaders. Leaderless work groups, self-directed teams and semi-autonomous units are demonstrating that self-managed followers can achieve ambitious goals on their own. In one troubled East Coast bank, a team of financial analysts completely re-vamped the entire credit-analysis department without any designated leader. They wrote a departmental mission statement, job descriptions and performance evaluation guidelines. They designed and implemented their own training program and planned for their own operational needs. Their capacity to control and direct themselves without leadership saved the bank months of turmoil and freed valuable top-management time to handle the financial crisis facing the bank. Self-managed followers like these are playing a powerful role in transforming how American businesses run themselves.

Let’s set the record straight regarding followers and their interaction with their leaders. No one is a leader without followers and no leader succeeds without followers making it happen. Without his armies, after all, Napoleon was just a man with grandiose ambitions. Organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead. Of equal importance is how well their followers follow. Leaders may speak first, but followers always have the last say. And leaders better start listening if they want to succeed.