Although leadership is often portrayed as a glamorous career destination, being put in a position of power or responsibility is by no means an indicator of your ability to actually lead effectively. In fact, decades of research highlight an uncomfortable and pervasive gap between the leaders we have, and those we actually need. Indeed, some of the traits that help people emerge as leaders appear far less useful once they actually have to lead: narcissism, for example, predicts leadership emergence but not leadership effectiveness.
Consider that the failure rate for corporate managers is estimated at least 50%, the confidence in our leaders continues to decline and is now at an all time low, and that the correlation between money spent on making our leaders better and people’s faith in our leaders is negative. Add to this the recurrent data on employee disengagement (caused mostly by their direct supervisors), and the fact that people join companies but quit their bosses, and the question seems rather unavoidable: if only a minority of leaders are capable of performing to a high level, then should fewer people try to become leaders? In other words, if a high-proportion of leaders become ineffective, incompetent or inept at their job, should fewer people consider leadership as a career option?
Conversely, we rarely talk about the importance of good followers, but they are actually a critical aspect and underrated ingredient of leadership excellence. First, while leaders should be evaluated through the performance of their team, teams will perform better if they have smart and aligned followers, which is why in most professional sports teams there is a strong positive correlation between a team’s compensation and their performance (which leaves coaches to account for a small percentage of the variance). Second, as all political elections show, democratically chosen candidates are always as good as their voters, so followers’ maturity, educational attainment, and social intelligence are all critical factors determining the result of elections — if you want smart leaders, it is helpful to have smart followers. Third, follower maturity (as well as competence and integrity) is key to keeping bad leaders in check, which is why incompetent, toxic, and destructive leaders are far more likely to remain in charge when their followers and subordinates are blind to their performance.
Which is it?
So, is it better to be a good follower or a bad leader? The answer is not straightforward. Polite etiquette and a prosocial impression would make most people answer with the former, which does not however stop them from preferring the status and success associated with the latter. After all, bad leaders are often quite good at retaining power, especially if they report to, well, other bad leaders. Furthermore, the most common reward for being a good follower is a leadership job, which is odd if you think about it: why would we stop individual contributors from doing a job they are good at to put them in a role they may not only be unable to do, but also disinterested in? “Thank you for being our star performer, you will now have to manage a team of fifteen… and stop doing what you are good at”. This explains the timeless popularity and relevance of the famous Peter principle, which states that sooner or later most people are promoted to their own level of incompetence. Indeed, whatever role you stagnate in is one step beyond the role you should have stayed in, which is to say that your potential is probably the maximum role you reach minus one.
On the other hand, the question will depend on whether the outcome is judged on the basis of your own or other people’s interests. To state the obvious, being a good follower is good for others but not so good for you if it limits your career success, which is what not becoming a leader (sadly) means, at least in corporate settings. Conversely, being a bad leader may still be good for you if it means attaining status and prestige, as well as higher levels of income and success, but this will come to the detriment of others, especially those who report to you.
A better approach
There is, however, a more useful way to think about this distinction, which is to stop treating leadership and followership as opposite ends of a hierarchy. The best followers are not passive, obedient, or deferential. They are competent enough to know when their leaders are wrong, confident enough to challenge them, and sufficiently committed to the collective interest to put the team ahead of their own ego. In that sense, good followership requires many of the same qualities we supposedly want in leaders: judgment, integrity, self-awareness, courage, and the ability to work effectively with others. Indeed, organizations would probably improve if they spent a little less time teaching everyone how to lead, and a little more time teaching people how to contribute, cooperate, and occasionally disagree with those who do.
Likewise, one of the clearest indicators of leadership potential should be the ability to follow. People who cannot tolerate being managed, who regard every disagreement with their boss as evidence of incompetence, or who need to be the smartest and most important person in every room are unlikely to undergo a magical personality transformation when promoted. Give them power and you are simply removing some of the constraints that previously kept their narcissism, impulsivity, or delusions of grandeur in check. Leadership does not cure character flaws. Quite often, it gives them a larger budget.
Perhaps, then, the real problem is not that too few people want to be good followers, but that we have designed careers so that leadership is regarded as the ultimate proof of professional success. Until organizations create equivalent status, recognition, and financial rewards for exceptional individual contributors, ambitious people will continue to pursue leadership roles whether or not they have the talent, temperament, or desire to lead. We should hardly be surprised by the result. If the only way to get ahead is to become the boss, we will continue turning excellent followers into mediocre leaders, while rewarding mediocre leaders simply for remaining in charge. A good follower may contribute more value than a bad leader, but unfortunately value and status are not the same thing. Much of the history of management can be understood as our persistent failure to notice the difference.
