We live in a culture where leadership is glorified. It’s held up as the ultimate goal for anyone who wants to succeed.
But in the process, we’ve developed a leadership bias. We equate leadership with power, influence, and worth. And as a result there is now a $50 billion leadership training industry that reinforces the importance of leadership and the leadership bias.
Today, we’re going to challenge that bias.
What if this emphasis on leadership creates a culture where certain voices and contributions are overlooked?
Or worse, what if this leadership bias is creating a stigma – specifically one that shines a spotlight on the people who are NOT interested in climbing the corporate ladder or are not inclined to take on the responsibilities of management and formal positions of leadership.
I believe we are missing something important in the present leadership focus in our companies and schools.
And I’m not alone on this hill.
Professor Elias Aboujaoude suggests in his work A Leader’s Destiny: Why Psychology, Personality, and Character Make All the Difference that the leadership industrial complex needs fixing. Fundamental to his argument is that it is the mathematical impossible to maintain the present push and focus that people must strive for leadership.
And while I have some argument with his underlying line of thinking that leadership cannot be taught, I do agree with Elias’ point that some of what makes for good leadership is personality and attitude and research tells us these are innate and potentially unchangeable.
With that, we also need to acknowledge that 80% of any organization is focused on executing the strategy of someone higher than them at any given point in time – and that is a lowball estimate.
So, today I’m going to focus, again, on how organizations can support people who choose strategic followership, and what it takes to build a workplace culture that values followership as much as leadership.
We’ll break this down into three key areas: productivity, trust, and impact.
Let’s start with productivity.
In most leadership-centric workplaces, there’s this assumption that someone who is productive – someone who is good at their job – should be considered for a leadership position. If they can do their job well then clearly they can drive productivity in others. That’s BS – bad science – and it’s a huge misconception.
In fact, some of the most productive people – people who are acting in Strategic followership, and are highly productive because of their skills – are people who’s skills we will LOSE if we move then into positions of leadership.
Followers who engage strategically aren’t just taking orders—they’re contributing ideas, refining processes, and often driving innovation from the ground up. They’re the ones ensuring that the organization’s vision is executed efficiently and effectively.
An employee who chooses to specialize in a particular skill or set of functions brings depth to their role. This depth enhances overall productivity because these individuals understand their work better than anyone. They know where the inefficiencies lie, and they often have the best solutions for streamlining processes. And they know how to get stuff done.
By pushing these people into a position of leadership or management, they are no longer bringing their highly skilled training to the main problems faced by the team. Leadership requires a completely different skillset.
So, the questions we should be asking is: Why aren’t we celebrating these people and their contributions for what they are – strategic followership? Why do we constantly talk to this person through the lens of potential leadership? Why aren’t we rewarding the productivity that comes from skilled followers who are deeply invested in their roles without pushing them to take on a leadership role?
Why? Because of leadership bias.
In a followership-friendly culture, we would support these people, not spotlight them with the stigma of leadership.
So here’ s tip number 1. If you are a manager, start supporting people who choose focused, non-leadership oriented growth. Talk to HR about ways to compensate, support, and retain people who are exceptional at their jobs but don’t want to take on leadership. Otherwise you will lose them or force them into a path that is bad for them and for the company.
But it isn’t just the productivity equals leadership potential that is creating a stigma of leadership.
Let’s talk about trust and the subtle ways our leadership bias affects it.
In a leadership-centric culture, there’s often an unspoken assumption that leadership ambition equates to trustworthiness. We start to believe that if someone doesn’t want a leadership role, they’re somehow less reliable, less invested, or even less capable. This bias pressures people to think that aiming for leadership is the only way to prove their value.
But here’s the problem: Not everyone is drawn to leadership, and that’s okay. Many people thrive as followers, bringing depth, skill, and commitment to their work without needing a leadership title. These individuals are often just as (if not more) committed to the team’s success, but they’re left feeling like their perspective is less valid, like they’re somehow “not enough” simply because they don’t aspire to lead.
And this breaks trust.
What’s more, this stigma of leadership often comes with a secondary perspective – that leadership is a function of POSITION. Trust is often framed as something leaders must earn from their teams. But trust goes both ways. Leaders need to trust their followers just as much. In a leadership-biased culture, that trust can sometimes be eroded by the idea that only position leaders should have the authority to guide strategic processes.
But many of these strategic followers have the potential to be emergent leaders during team meetings, guiding specific projects or processes, as mentors, and more.
And when we re-enforce a leadership bias in our culture, people who aren’t inclined toward leadership start to question their own worth. They’re overlooked when it comes to trust and influence, and their input may be dismissed, even if they bring valuable insights. This mistrust isn’t just unnecessary; it’s harmful. It sidelines potential, discourages diverse perspectives, and limits the collective strength of the team.
When we create a culture that values followership as much as leadership, we make trust the basis for influence. It is something everyone can earn, not just those who want to lead. We show people that their value isn’t tied to ambition, but to the core elements of trust – their capabilities, reliability, their ability to share ideas and be intimate about their feelings, and their orientation as a team player.
It isn’t just skills or productivity, but dedication and the unique perspectives they bring to the table that is acknowledged, rewarded, and desired. In a followership-friendly culture, trust is built on how people work with others – their contribution as a teammate – not whether they hold or even want a leadership role.
And when we embrace followership as a strategic role, trust becomes mutual. Leaders learn to rely on the expertise and insight of their followers, and followers, in turn, trust that their input is valued and respected without the constant dread that they need to take on a position of leadership and management.
Think about it: a follower who knows that their voice matters is more likely to take ownership of their work, to push for better outcomes, and to collaborate with their peers. In an environment that values followership, trust is a two-way street, and it results in stronger, more cohesive teams.
Now, how does this play out in real life? When trust flows in both directions, organizations see fewer bottlenecks because decision-making isn’t top-heavy. Followers are empowered to act within their areas of expertise, and leaders can step back, knowing they’ve built a team that can execute without constant oversight.
Which leads to tip number 2 – when we consider who should be brought into a position of leadership, HR and managers should focus on a link between the trust quotient – how much the team trusts the person – and whether the person’s interpersonal skills are more worthwhile than their technical or focused skillset. People who WANT to lead should be given the opportunity to practice and demonstrate their ability. And through that management can figure out what skills they may need to learn and practice more before they climb the ladder.
BUT for the people who DON’T want to lead – management and HR should consider how to support and build trust with the person as a demonstration of the worth of followership. This might come in the form of further education opportunities. But the best way to build this trust is through engaged leadership that acknowledges the impact of each variable in the trust quotient and gives worth to people who impact the overall levels of trust and success on the team and in the organization.
Finally, let’s talk about impact.
We often think of impact in terms of leadership—how a leader influences the success of a team or an organization. But impact isn’t exclusive to leadership. In fact, followers can have just as much, if not more, impact on the success of a project, a team, or a company.
Let’s be honest – like I said at the beginning – over 80% of any organization is mostly focused on followership. Mathematically, the potential for everyone to be leading all the time does not exist.
What’s more followers are the ones on the frontlines, executing the strategy, interacting with customers, and working through the details that leaders may not have the bandwidth to handle. When followers are empowered to act strategically, they can shape outcomes in ways that leaders alone cannot.
Strategic followers bring their own kind of impact to the table—one that’s rooted in expertise, perspective, and execution. Their impact is often felt in the way they elevate the performance of the entire team, by supporting and sometimes even challenging leadership decisions.
In a followership-friendly culture, impact is not just measured by who leads, but by who contributes to meaningful progress. And often, it’s the followers—those who choose to specialize, to dig in, and to execute with precision—who make the most substantial contributions to an organization’s long-term success.
Which leads us to tip number 3 – measure impact. Don’t just measure it, teach how to improve it. This is an L&D function. Learning and development can teach people how to improve their impact rating through focused followership education that drives open communication, shared learning experiences, and more.
An important aside
Now, I want to take a moment to acknowledge something important about leadership – there are people who are ripe for leadership. But they don’t see it in themselves. It isn’t that they don’t want a leadership position. It is that they don’t BELIEVE they are GOOD ENOUGH to be leaders.
And these people need their managers to give them the push into leadership.
Which means that part of the task that leaders, managers, L&D, and HR have is to walk the fine line that supports the RIGHT people for leadership AND creates a followership friendly culture for those people who are NOT interested or leadership potential but demonstrate strategic followership.
The Challenge
The stigma of leadership – the idea that leadership is the only path to influence or success – needs to be challenged. We need to create workplaces where people who choose strategic followership are valued, where productivity is recognized, trust is mutual, and impact is the measure of worth, not title.
It’s time we embraced the full potential of our teams by making followership a respected and supported decision. When we do, we create organizations where everyone – not just the leaders – can thrive.
My challenge to HR and organizational leaders is to choose leaders and managers from people who WANT to take on the responsibilities associated with these tasks and who are interested in learning the skills they need to be better leaders.
Even if someone shows leadership potential, we need to ask is that potential is better utilized in support of their teammates or if they have the drive to lead greater strategic processes and manage people. And you should discuss this difference with them and WHY you see potential in this transition for them.
At the same time, L&D and OD should provide people the tools to focus on either leadership development OR personal and skills growth without the leadership development angle. Not just tech skills but “how to be a good follower/team member” skills.
Want to learn more about what I do? Let’s chat!
