Purchase this article as a standalone PDF with full colour magazine layout

You cannot have good followership without courage. Paradoxically, good leaders minimize the need for courage in their followers. Let’s examine these premises.

Leading and following can and do occur outside the realm of hierarchy. For example, on the dance floor. Or amongst a group of friends with different interests and talents who take turns leading and following in social situations.

But most leading and following, and certainly that which occurs in business or government service, occur within the framework of hierarchy and power differential. The boss can hire, fire, promote, demote, issue orders and reverse them. The employee cannot.

Most leading and following, and certainly that which occurs in business or government service, occur within the framework of hierarchy and power differential.

Because of this reality, there is a formal power imbalance in favour of the leader. The balance is not entirely skewed, as a very talented employee who can take their services elsewhere, has their own source of power. But generally speaking, it is the employee the follower who experiences themselves as more vulnerable than the leader.

Given these dynamics, we find the follower needing to “read the boss” when approaching them with divergent ideas, requests that require signoff, desires for promotion or more favourable assignments or, most delicately, feedback on the boss’ actions. Are they in a good mood? Are recent experiences likely to make them amenable to the conversation? Are they on solid footing with the leader or is it thin ice?

As has been correctly observed, courage is not the absence of fear but rather what is needed to act in the face of fear. Social courage is every bit as necessary as physical courage. We learn from Abraham Maslow that our social need to feel we belong is a strong motivator. Only when we feel secure in our relationships, do we take risks to reach new levels of accomplishment and the self-esteem that accompanies this.

When we are working to develop followership skills, we want to identify and tap into our own sources of courage. This is what enables us to psychologically level the playing field with the formal leader. We are then more open to authentic conversations about what is needed for our success and that of the group.

Be prepared to shift the lead and follow role and then shift back again when the situation is resolved. When this is understood, it translates well into organizational team dynamics.

What are the sources of courage? They are unique to our lived experience. For some, it is a deep belief in doing what is right, based on our upbringing or religious convictions. For others, it may be a role model from our own family, or a cultural icon whom we have admired. Still, others rely on their professional reputation and a wide network of supporters and allies. What is important is that we know how to find courage when we perceive risk to our personal safety.

Let’s take an example.

We are a middle manager. This means we have two roles one as a leader to those who report to us and one as a follower of the leader to whom we report. We find ourselves in a situation in which our capacity to lead our team is being undermined by the behaviour of our formal leader. They thoughtlessly give orders to our team or make suggestions that are taken as orders, without going through us. This leaves us blindsided and repeatedly finding our team diverted from the plans and timelines we have carefully developed to meet our objectives.

We need to address this with the manager. Other unit heads have tried to do so and have been shot down. Some experienced subsequent retribution. This makes us anxious. We don’t want to unnecessarily hurt our promotion prospects in this company. How do we proceed?

The manager has their attention on another priority a critical deadline for a major customer. Our first move might be to give their priority extra attention, meeting the deadline to the customer’s full satisfaction. Our manager’s stress level lowered and they appreciated how we got our team to perform with flying colours. We have clearly been fully supportive. In a sense, we have earned the standing to now raise the sensitive management style issue.

There is still risk in the encounter. We know the manager does not accept upward feedback well. Nevertheless, if we are to continue to get good performance from our team and find satisfaction in our work, we need to bring up the issue and have it taken seriously. In this case our courage comes from wanting to buffer our team from conflicting orders that create confusion and resentment. It is our commitment to our team that gives us the courage to raise the matter with the manager.

We broach the matter skillfully, with good timing, and the manager is receptive. This is a good outcome. We found the courage and communicated effectively, despite the power differential. This is the skill set needed when we are in the follower role. But it required careful strategizing and taking a career risk to initiate the conversation. Not all our peers would be willing to do that. Many would harbour their resentment and give less of themselves to the success of the organization. No one “wins” in this state of affairs.

What could the leader do differently to lower the courage needed to raise sensitive matters with them? We have all heard leaders claim they have an “open door policy” and any of their team can come in and tell them anything they want. They believe this is sufficient to create a culture where their followers feel safe to do so. Usually, this is not the reality that their employees experience.

Some have taken up the manager on this invitation and found the experience painful. Before they were able to get out three sentences explaining the situation, the manager becomes defensive and refutes what they are saying, at times harshly or mockingly. Or they do listen politely but then do nothing to remedy the matter. Their subordinates soon conclude there is no point in giving feedback. They stop doing so and grumble behind the manager’s back, contributing to poor morale.

Organizational cultures are built by memorable acts at all levels of the organization - acts that come to represent how the organization views itself, what it values, and what it aspires to.

The manager has to be very intentional to create a truly psychologically safe space that invites and elicits constructive feedback. Their listening skills will need to be strong and authentic. When a team member does come in that door, they need to treat it as a test of their willingness to receive fresh ideas or feedback: give their full attention to the conversation; check they have correctly understood what they are being told; give the matter serious consideration.

They will need to be candid about which ideas they can and will act on, and then carry through with those. If they can’t act on a specific matter, explain why and let that be the exception rather than the rule. Thank the team member sincerely for their willingness to bring their ideas and concerns. Never have them leave regretting that they tried.

The result is the manager creates a culture in which constructive, candid communication and feedback becomes a norm in the workplace. No special courage is required to speak up. Everyone understands that not every idea they bring will be acted on, but all will be seriously considered. None will be grounds for penalizing the employee. When the follower has helped the leader understand something of particular importance, this will be reflected in positive performance reviews. The manager may even publicly thank them at a staff meeting to reinforce the norms of the culture they are creating.

Taking this one step further, there is also the option for the follower to exercise what is known as intelligent disobedience. This is the sine qua non of trust between leaders and followers.

The term “intelligent disobedience” comes from the training guide dogs receive when preparing to work with an individual who is blind. After learning to obey all the commands they need to know to assist the individual who is their leader they learn to disobey if obedience would result in harm to the leader or team. Clearly, this requires a high level of discernment by the guide dog and trust on the part of the leader.

Imagine that the leader and dog walk each morning to the train station for the commute into the city. The dog knows to stop and wait at each intersection until the leader gives the command to go forward. Normally this is routine. Last night, however, there was a wind storm. Tree branches have come down and are in their path.

When the leader gives the forward command, the dog disobeys even when the command is repeated. Though the leader can’t see the obstacles, he trusts the dog and remains still.

Thank the team member sincerely for their willingness to bring their ideas and concerns. Never have them leave regretting that they tried.

Now the dog assumes the lead. It can easily jump over the branches or crawl under them, but it must make a decision that will keep the human in its charge safe. If it can find a clear path around the obstacles, it leads them on that route to their destination. If it cannot, it returns them safely home. Once the danger has been navigated, the human again assumes the lead.

Notice that both the human and the dog need to be cognizant of when intelligent disobedience is the appropriate response to a situation. Each needs to be prepared to shift the lead and follow the role and then shift back again when the situation is resolved. When this is understood, it translates well into organizational team dynamics.

In November 2023, the British Army held a conference at the National Army Museum in London titled “Creating Effective Followership”. The event marked the inclusion of a twenty-page Followership Note to the British Army Leadership Doctrine. The discussions included an understanding of what courageous followership and exemplary followership mean at all levels of service. It also reviewed the subject of intelligent disobedience.

The panel on which I served included a former deputy chief medical officer of England, a retired Lt-Colonel, and a non-commissioned officer, WO 2, Adam Croucher. The audience was transfixed when the lowest-ranking member of the panel, WO 2 Croucher, recounted an incident in the evacuation of Kabul, Afghanistan.

He and his unit were guarding the perimeter of the airport. Thousands of Afghans were threatening to break through the line, which would have overrun the base, blocking the further evacuation of personnel. Croucher received an order from his superior officer who was stationed in a hangar, with limited vision of the reality at the perimeter. The order was to pull his troops back into the hangar. Realizing this would lead to chaos, he told his unit to hold the line while he hurried to the command centre in the hangar.

Once there, he told the officer who issued the order that his closed-circuit view was not giving the full picture and asked him to come to the front line, which he did. He immediately saw that Croucher’s assessment was correct and rescinded the order, resulting in a more orderly retreat at that location, while other locations experienced the full brunt of the panicked crowds. This was a classic example of intelligent disobedience on the junior officer’s part, and appropriate responsiveness by the senior officer. Courage was needed in many ways that day, but not as much as would have been required in an inflexible command and control system.

Organizational cultures are built by memorable acts at all levels of the organization - acts that come to represent how the organization views itself, what it values, and what it aspires to. Courage will always be needed, as most human beings bring their early experiences with authority to their new groups. It is not immediately clear if loyal dissent or intelligent disobedience will be well received, or dealt with punitively. Leaders can accelerate the learning curve so their teams know it is safe to productively question what is coming down from the hierarchy when doing so improves effectiveness and morale. Where leaders fail in this, followers can still find the courage to speak up in service of the mission and values.

Yes, there is a hierarchy in most leader-follower relations. There is also a dance that can be practised and gracefully performed, at times to stunning effect. Whether you are the leader or the follower, invite your partners to join you.