Let's hear it for the worker bees!

My daughter graduated from eighth grade last week. Like her brother, she was the president of the student council, had the lead in the school play, was on the honor roll all 3 years of junior high school, and was active in all of the sports teams from the school. Like her brother, she worked very hard to improve on her weaker skills, both academically and socially. However, unlike her brother, she did not receive one single note of recognition. In fact, many did not know she was president of the student council, although she worked harder than her brother ever did at organizing fund raising events, student volunteering, and community building between the classes. Many in the lower grades knew her by name, coming up to her to hug her whenever they had the chance.

The difference? My son is a "Queen Bee". He often sat by and directed others to do things, but basked in the limelight. He is a person with a gregarious personality. He has a commanding, confident personality that gets people to do things. On the other hand, my daughter is a worker bee. She quietly works hard, behind the scenes, worrying about the details (my son lets others worry about them). She takes up the slack when others fall down, working hard and consistently, going out, coming back, and working/communicating with everyone involved.

Too many leaders, not enough followers

In management training, there is a focus on the "leader": the person that tells people what to do and how to do it. These people are not always in positions of power. For example, the best run offices often have a strong leader in the secretary or receptionist. They are command central. However, we don't look at the impact that a strong follower has on the office: someone who can take direction, read the social environment, and get things done by consistent, hard work.

This translates into teaching our students how to be leaders, but not how to be followers. As schools and businesses use the team approach more and more, it is important that we begin to train workers how to be both leaders and followers, depending on the situation. Interestingly enough, my daughter does very well in group work. She is willing to take on the leadership role when it is needed. However, when working with strong personalities, she also is able to take on the follower role.

How many of us have worked in groups where there is a power struggle between two strong "leader" personalities? This creates mixed messages and work can't get done. Many leaders leave the details to their "worker bees", assuming it will get done. But if there are no worker bees to do the work, the work does not get done.

What makes a good follower

According to Stewart Tubbs (2007), there are three types of followers. Dependent followers are those that will do as ordered without asking questions. This type of follower is important for vital jobs where the execution of a task as ordered is important (such as the military, nuclear power plant, or professional sports team). Often this type of group will have individual group members with vital information or expertise which must be coordinated for the team to work as a whole. Deviating from orders might weaken the team as a whole as each member may not have all the information they need as a team. Not everyone is a good dependent follower. There must be a high level of trust between the leader and follower and the follower must be able to understand and execute orders or be able to ask for clarification to ensure they are on the same page as other group members. "Taking initiative" might put other group members into peril.

The second type of follower is the counterdependent follower. This person is resistant to authority. For the most part, management will look at this type of follower as a negative role. However, the counterdependent follower can make a team stronger by ensuring all alternatives have been investigated. This also helps the team to avoid group think. My daughter often got herself in trouble by being this type of follower as she was very creative. I believe that this was one of the reasons she did not receive any awards as she was perceived as a trouble maker when she would bring up alternatives or questioned the way things were done, proposing alternatives that were fairer or more efficient. This is especially taboo in a Catholic School where there is a strong authoritative leadership style!

The third type of follower is the independent. This is the more traditional "worker bee" who takes the goals and accomplishes them with little direction. Of course, most management would prefer this type of follower as they need to interact with them less often, yet they can trust that the work will get done.

A good follower, like a good leader, needs to be flexible and be able to adapt to the circumstance, environment, and social dynamics of a group. A good follower also needs to know when they should be a follower and when they need to step up to the plate and give direction.

Who recognizes the worker bees?

Unfortunately, few awards and recognition are given to the worker bees. For every famous leader, there is a team of worker bees supporting them (Watch the report Brian Williams did on Obama's staff). We need to start recognizing the followers/worker bees in our country and schools. What about the kid that has consistently been attaining the 50% mark on standardized tests, never going down, but chugging away and learning quietly every year in school? I once read that this country was run by "B" students: those that did not "excel" at anything, but were consistent workers getting things accomplished without any fanfare. Where would the quarterbacks be without the guards (many of which we don't know their names) to protect them? How many of us know the names of the relief pitchers that come in when the starting pitcher begins to fail? How many of us know the names of the middle managers (plant managers, marketing and sales managers, customer service reps) who keep a company going, through break downs, complaints, and other daily problems that come up?

How about schools beginning to recognize the worker bees?

Tubbs, S. (2007) A Systems Approach to Small Group Interaction, 9th Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

Leadership: is it overrated?

Michael Hanley had an interesting post last week about Donald Clark's posting on leadership.

This is something that I have thought of over the last 5 years as some of my research, teaching, and education has brushed up against the "leadership" research. In fact, my university has one of the leading leadership gurus in Management today. However, like Michael and Donald, I have always questioned the basis of these leadership theories. On the other hand, my current research has demonstrated that leadership can have an impact on how groups (especially distributed groups) work and are able (or unable) to complete work in a tight timeline.

Management or Leadership

I think one of the problems is that there has been a distinction made among "leadership" scholars between leadership and management. However, leadership is one aspect of management. Likewise, communication (which seems to be the link taken out of "leadership"), organization, motivation, analysis that balances risk and security, and TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for mistakes and correcting actions (another aspect of management that seems to be lacking in current leadership theories) are also vital in Management.

On the other hand, there is a role for leadership (effective leadership) in the new organization. With the advent of a flat organizational structure, where distributed groups may all be working at the same level, there needs to be some leadership structure. My current research looking at a working group demonstrates that when there is a perceived lack of leadership structure (as happens in newly formed groups) it is more difficult for groups to make decisions and move forward. This can be especially difficult for groups that have been set up under a strict time constraint to accomplish discrete goals or objectives. My sister works in professional groups which, because the members are professionals of equal standing, there are no identified leaders. As a result, the organization is having trouble maintaining a uniform level of service.

Is this leadership or management? If leadership is defined as the all powerful person that tells group members what to do without really interacting with them so that there is a fall guy when things go wrong (or more likely, someone to find a group member to blame) then this is "leadership". However, there needs to be a group facilitator (leader? manager?) who organizes the group, keeps them on track, manages interactions and communication between group members, makes final decisions when the group is deadlocked, helps interact with those outside of the group (i.e. with clients, upper management, front line workers) and develops the working structure for the group as members come and go into the group. This role is a bit more than a "manager", a bit more than a "leader" who makes decisions regardless of the group input, and more of a juggler of many aspects of the group.

Most importantly, what I have not read is why leaders (who are the risk takers) should get compensated more than the workers (who may have no choice in their jobs)? Shouldn't leaders that fail have to pay back money if they fail is they are being compensated for big risks if they succeed? Wouldn't this encourage them to make "better" decisions? Or should they be compensated the same as their team members as theirs is just a different job within the group? Why should "leaders" make twice as much money as "followers"? Isn't it just as important to have good followers?