Whether technology implementation, process improvement, or cultural transformation, implementing change is hard. It involves engaging the human dynamics of an organization; dynamics that are complex, social, and unique to each community. In their 2021 International Journal of Engineering Business Management research article, reviewing an array of change models, Abdelouahab Errida and Bouchra Lotfi, ascertain that using only one model may not provide a full description of the change management process… [that] several change models could be combined to best fit the particular situation of change or the circumstances of an organization. Angela Lee of Columbia Business School proposes that resistance to change is rooted in psychology and neuroscience which reveal that our individual brains are wired for laziness, limited capacity, and [simply] don’t like change. Though the psychology and neuroscience claims may be valid, if cynical, I advocate David Cooperrider’s observation that, People don’t resist change. They resist being changed.
Fundamentally, the human dynamics challenge seems rooted in the context of individual choice. The popular Prosci® model emphasizes and coaches around the individual need to desire change. I have, throughout my time engaging change, intuitively sought to leverage available value propositions to influence individual choice for change. Revealing genuine individual benefit can serve to counter the grief of loss that comes when change feels imposed. Even leaders must choose to willingly lead the way and model new behavior.
Given these human dynamics, development and change agents remain challenged to discern and affect the human factor of each particular environment seeking to make a change.
I learned of the Milgram Experiment (https://youtu.be/nexpwnwonRc) in my Research Methods class, and I revisit that learning to this day. Coming out of WWII, the experiment was set up to research obedience. It has been performed many times since, and the outcome continues to be the same. Somewhere around 50% of followers will abdicate responsibility for their actions to authority willing to take that responsibility from them. Why? This remains a question, and one I continue to ponder, along with whether humanity might be able to evolve from it.
Where it made sense, much of my writing through that same education referred to what I call personal or self-leadership. There are many attributes we look for in effective leaders that are important for effective leaders and followers alike:
- Responsibility
- Accountability
- Self-Awareness/Self-Agency
- Integrity
- Effective Communication/Feedback
There are others, certainly, but these are a good representation. And, when followers possess these traits, we are better able to hold our leaders accountable, as noted 25 years ago by Ira Chaleff in Courageous Followership: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders. In it, he defines Courageous Followership as follows:
Any organization is a triad consisting of leaders and followers joined in a common purpose. The purpose is the atomic glue that binds us. It gives meaning to our activities. Followers and leaders both orbit around the purpose; followers do not orbit around the leader. Courageous Followership recognizes that to be effective at almost every level of an organization, individuals need to play both the leader and follower role adeptly.
Further, Ira discusses Five Dimensions of Courageous Followership:
- To Serve
- To Challenge
- To Participate in Transformation
- To Take Moral Action
- To Speak to Hierarchy
And, how well these concepts align with the self-leadership attributes listed previously:
- To Serve requires taking Responsibility
- To Challenge requires an understanding and practice of Accountability of both self and others
- To Participate in Transformation requires Self-Awareness which leads to the Self-Agency to choose to change
- To Take Moral Action requires Integrity to Purpose
- To Speak to the Hierarchy requires effective skill in Communication and providing Feedback
With unemployment trending low for the foreseeable future and many employees seeking new opportunities to better fulfill a need for agency and autonomy to manage our lives across work, family and personal needs, it behooves us as a society to recognize that supporting an evolution to better followership through personal growth opportunities is in our best interest. In so doing, we develop better followers who in turn can better hold leaders accountable to purpose, whether organizational or societal.
As Leaders, we do well to develop and leverage Courageous Followership within our organizations to attract talent as well as define and remain true to organizational purpose. Developed followers could also better contribute to fluid leadership situations like self-managed and -directed teams. Whether stepping into fluid leadership or holding leaders to purpose, better followers make better leaders.
Nurture the Goose 