Less Lost.
Do not follow me. I’m lost. — U.G. Krishnamurti
The notion of followership is either obscure or not that exciting.
It seems all the attention is sucked up by leadership. It has all the glamour and splendor. We take courses to ‘learn it’, and when we act it out effectively, we get applause, recognition, money, and promotions. From executive programs to pop-psychology books, the implicit message is: to lead is to matter.
While most agree that followership is equally important to any undertaking’s success, few volunteer to earn a reputation as an excellent follower. ‘Visionary leader’ is what we are after. We want to utter oracles rather than tread on the heels of those who do, so to speak.
Pity, because the fact of life is that one is in both roles constantly. Preoccupied with leadership, I suppose. Followership dominates our lives and organizations — but not our thinking.
Part of the issue may be that followership is often defined as merely the flip side of leadership. It then revolves around the ability to take direction well, to get in line behind a program, and to deliver on what’s expected. A good follower is then — rather unflatteringly — equated with an obedient order taker.
Derek Sivers therefore deserves considerable credit for advocating that followership be put on equal footing with its coveted counterpart. He calls it ‘an underappreciated form of leadership.’
Get Jacek Pastuszka’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
It’s no longer for wimps. Sivers shows how putting yourself willingly in active support of the idea or person that you genuinely believe in provides you with multiple opportunities to put every tenet of leadership on display.
His statement that ‘the first follower makes a leader’ summarizes it best. The first follower earns strong, reciprocal commitment from the leader. Influence is mutual; one depends on the other.
Yet Krishnamurti words pierce even more strongly. They sharply expose the shallowness of our underlying paradigm. The trap of a flawed binary. The falsity of the broadly accepted leader-follower dichotomy and framework.
Even if we elevate followership, give it its due, and acknowledge its nuanced strengths, we are still operating within a very narrow paradigm. A leader is ‘in the know.’ A follower, well, follows. A leader cannot be lost, can they?
The point is, we are often lost, aren’t we? If we allow, admit, and accept that, we stop performing. We stop fearing insignificance. We stop seeking constant validation. We stop pretending certainty where there is none.
The only way to escape this narrow and limiting paradigm would be to define leadership in a way that does not require the existence of a follower. And to refrain from reflexively mocking it by repeating the popular phrase ‘a leader without followers is just a man taking a walk.’
Forget leadership. Focus not on influencing others, garnering followers, or making converts. Zero in on what we can really control — our own behavior: our feet, hands, and mouth. On self-governance, rather than external influence.
Would it make us less lost? More worthy of being followed or less desperate when we are not?
