‘IT’S BETTER TO BE A LION FOR A DAY THAN A SHEEP ALL YOUR LIFE’
—ELIZABETH KENNY
Elizabeth Kenny was an Australian nurse. Actually, she lacked nursing qualifications, yet she still managed to serve her country as a staff nurse during World War I. Afterwards, she opened her own backyard clinic, pioneered treatments that were ridiculed – and then widely adopted – by the medical fraternity, and developed training programs for doctors around the world. So to say that Sister Kenny was a lion rather than a sheep would be a fair statement. The problem with this quotation, though, is the denigration of sheep. We’ve come to a point in our modern society where leadership is glorified while followership is frowned upon, although no one acknowledges that we need less of the former and more of the latter, since leaders can’t possibly lead without people who will follow them. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being a follower. There is an art to it; a science to it, even. And the more we worship leadership – the more we lionise it – the more we encourage people to pursue careers as leaders even when they’re fundamentally not up to the task. They end up pursuing leadership for reasons of power, status, money – all the wrong reasons, really. If only we had valued the sheep as much as the lion, we wouldn’t have as many ill-equipped leaders roaring and goring their way up the corporate ladder, ravenously seeking prey.
Here’s a more scholarly exposition of this idea: ‘Now, though, it’s time, it’s past time, to face facts . . . People without obvious sources of power, authority, and influence are far more consequential than we generally assume, and they are ubiquitous. To give them short shrift is to shortchange our understanding of both leaders and followers. In fact, as the result of changes now converging, followers are more important than ever before. And leaders nearly everywhere are more vulnerable to forces beyond their control, including those from the bottom up . . . The days when people in high places can sit pretty and do what they want how they want are over . . . Followers the world over are getting bolder and more strategic. They are less likely now than they were in the past to “know their place”, to do as they are told, and to keep their opinions to themselves. This change, this small but potentially seismic shift in the balance of power between leaders and followers, constitutes a caution: leaders who ignore or dismiss their followers do so at their peril.’81
The Harvard-based author of that passage has chronicled throughout history the ways in which followers exert enormous influence. The impact of the trade union movement over decades is one example. But even now, a time when the power of unions has diminished, what have since emerged are greater whistle-blower protections; employee ownership schemes; affirmative action; the war for talent; shared leadership; shareholder activism; social media exposure; staff advocacy; the prioritisation of employee empowerment, engagement, involvement and job satisfaction; the human resources department; and employees with extensive knowledge and information (thanks to the World Wide Web and historically high levels of education) that, in many cases, surpass the traditionalist power of their employers. All of that is reason enough to immediately render followers no longer inferior.
Of course, there are many followers who are inferior. They’re the ones who enable bad leadership to happen by not speaking out, by idolising, by being apathetic. They’re the ones who politicise and scheme, manipulate and underperform, procrastinate and sabotage. But you’ll find those characteristics among leaders, too. Especially among leaders. The majority of followers are the opposite. They might not all be superstars, but a fair chunk of them are good enough. And without these good-enough folk, our organisations and charities, our public service and diplomacy channels, our school canteens and volunteer committees, and myriad other fundamental functions of society just wouldn’t function.
This is also why scholars reasonably assume that strong, capable, decent followers have a vital role to play beyond merely following. ‘Leaders are not isolated actors immune from the influence of their followers.’ In fact, followers are ‘an integral part of leadership’ because they can influence leaders to be better leaders via their skills of persuasion, the power they hold within the team, the relational proximity they have with their leader, the frequency of their interactions, and the knowledge and information they possess’.82
And we shouldn’t ignore the fact that everyone, really, is a follower. Everyone, despite their position on a hierarchy, despite the strength of their roar, still emits a bleat every now and again. After all, ‘most individuals, even those with the highest levels of leadership responsibilities, answer to someone, be it the members of a board, the shareholders of a company, or the voters in an election’. And that’s what’s been found to be empirically true. In a study of military cadets, researchers compared the traits of leaders with the traits of followers, and found that ‘the behaviors exhibited by the exemplary follower may not be that far off from those displayed by the effective leader’. Specifically, there are significant correlations between the leadership styles of dynamism and the followership style of active engagement, and between the leadership style of achievement orientation and the followership style of independent thinking. In other words, the lion with which leaders are most commonly associated is just as present in followers. Both leaders and followers can be ‘the same animal with different spots’.83
The problem, though, is that the two animals are usually treated differently, and that’s because of the label attached to the term ‘follower’. Labels are sticky. They’re like a sticker on a purchased item that can’t be removed, no matter how hard one tries to scratch it off. Even when most of the label is removed, the remnants are still there: the glue, the frayed paper. It’s why prior research has revealed that labels can reinforce the negative connotations with which that label is regarded. One example is the label ‘convicted felon’; another is ‘drug addict’. Studies have shown that recidivism and addiction can be higher among those who are labelled as such; it’s much like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A trio of researchers who were intrigued by these findings sought to learn whether a similar principle applies in relation to followership. They ran two studies. The first was an experiment comprising approximately 150 participants. A third were told they were leaders, a third were followers, and a third weren’t given a label at all. Those who were classified as followers had ‘significantly lower positive affect’. ‘Positive affect’ is the psychological term that describes those who feel joyful, enthusiastic, confident and energetic. As a result, the followers in the experiment were much less likely to be proactive or to perform duties beyond their core role. In the second study, the researchers moved out of the laboratory and into the real world, with an analysis of almost 350 employees. The findings were replicated.
‘Negative followership connotations persist because of the subordination of followership and the romance of leadership,’ they concluded. In addition, to be a follower ‘is associated with pejorative connotations . . . [and] compromises individuals’ positive moods, and thus, discourages their active behaviors like helping others and taking initiative. Consequently, not only might followers be burdened by their label and position, but organizations might also suffer from their lack of motivation and uninspiring performance.’84
Basically, the value that followers can add and the ways in which they can influence and advocate and inform are diminished by how pervasively we glorify the lion and denigrate the sheep. But even the analogy itself is flawed. To be a lion-like leader is to be autocratic and dictatorial, which has been empirically found to be destabilising and to result in staff turnover, burnout, weaker relationships, lower productivity, lower employee satisfaction and many other adverse consequences. Conversely, to be a sheep-like leader is more closely related to the style of servant leadership, which many studies have found can generate greater levels of trust, fairness, sustainability, employee commitment, proactive behaviour, creativity, helpfulness and collegiality.
Elizabeth Kenny’s quotation most certainly is flawed, not only in its instructive merit but also in its metaphorical implication. So let’s change it. Thankfully, we have a couple of options to play with:
‘It’s better to be a lion and a sheep.’
‘It’s not necessarily better to be a lion than a sheep.’
81B. Kellerman, 2008, Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders, Harvard Business Press, Boston.
82B. Oc & M.R. Bashshur, 2013, ‘Followership, leadership and social influence’, The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 919–934.
83G.F. Tanoff & C.B. Barlow, 2002, ‘Leadership and followership: Same animal, different spots?’, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 157–165.
84C. Hoption, A. Christie & J. Barling, 2012, ‘Submitting to the follower label: Followership, positive affect, and extra-role behaviors’, Zeitschrift für Psychologie, vol. 220, no. 4, pp. 221–230.