Followership is a critical aspect of democracy, but unfortunately, it has never taken firm root in Nigeria. Even though it nurtures good leadership by invisibly helping keep leaders upright and on track, it simply does not exist here. Citizens are not positively engaged rather they are used to whip up political, ethnic and religious tension and crises.
Yes, there is a conundrum in leadership: Most of the people who naturally gravitate toward leadership roles don’t have the humility or decency you’d want in a leader. And most of the humble and decent people that we might want to see in leadership roles quickly feel chewed up by the tensions, undue criticisms and the thanklessness of the job. They soon retreat to ‘safety’ by being aloof. And only their more ruthless counterparts – most of whom are mediocre and charlatans – are left to compete for supremacy.
If we want to have any hope of changing this nation, we have to do a better job of building up followership – the people who aren’t natural leaders but who have qualities that can serve starting from the local government levels to the national level.
Just as we have effective and ineffective approaches to leadership, we have effective and ineffective approaches to followership. And just that concept alone indicates that followership is not reactive or simply assigned, rather it is a position selected by those individuals who pledge their followership through a project, job role, group goal, or other shared desire for an outcome.
The language used for effective followership is “exemplary followership,” coined by Dr. Robert Kelley in the early 1990s. Kelley successfully developed an assessment to identify the varying types of followers and brought high visibility to the importance of followership in the leader/follower relationship, which he details in his book The Power of Followership. Exemplary followers, according to Dr. Kelley, are highly engaged and thinking independently. They share in the same goal as the leader and are committed to succeeding in reaching that goal; thus a shared sense of responsibility.
I tend to think of leadership and followership’s interdependence on each other for success as that of a canoer and their oar. A canoer without an oar is left at the mercy of the current. It moves in whatever direction the water takes it, colliding with any obstacle in its way. With an oar, the canoer can navigate through the waters, either speeding up, slowing down, steering around obstacles, or even parking along the shore. Without the canoer, the oar also sits in the canoe left at the mercy of the current.
The oar is like a leader – whether that leader be president, governor etc. As the country or state moves along different types of currents both internal and external, the president, governor etc, provides the guidance and tools to navigate the currents effectively.
Thinking of this in a leader/follower perspective, the leader being the oar is the resource to help the team succeed. The followers are the canoers who leverage the strength of the oar to propel the team along the currents. Without the canoer, the paddle sits in the boat at the mercy of the current. Without the paddle, the canoers are just as helpless to the currents. This sense of interdependency is what makes navigating the journey successful to reaching our goals. So, why is ours different? I will sign off with this story.
In 1934, local and western media gathered at a local farm event aimed at propagating late Soviet leader Joseph Stalin as a ‘man of the people.’. The goal was to interact with the workers, and answer questions from the press. All had gone as planned. The farm was perfectly staged for pictures. The workers were handpicked and prepared for their performance. Stalin’s presence was undeniable as he answered every one of the prescribed questions given to the media.
While answering questions, he was also spreading grain to a group of chickens. “Yes, domestic agricultural output has increased by four hundred percent since we nationalised agricultural production.” answered Stalin. “Through the implementation of modern farming methods and state control there is more grain, more cabbage, and more carrots.” He continued, “Even these chickens have increased egg production” He half joked.
Suddenly, one bold and sceptical American journalist dared to ask an unprepared question; an honest and informed question. “Mister Premier,” the journalist said “How long do you think you can keep up this charade?”
Everywhere was deathly quiet knowing who Stalin was. Stalin just continued spreading grain as if he didn’t hear the question. The journalist asked again, “What makes you think you can starve and torture and kill your people and they won’t rise up against you?” The local media stood dumbstruck with fear and his aides in a panic attempted to shuffle off the question and the journalist. Stalin motioned for them to stop and for the cameras to be put away. He then reached down and picked up one of the chickens and held it tight under his arm so it could not move.
Stalin replied: “We have more grain because we have nationalised farming and so we can sell the grain for capital in order to build factories to produce the things the people need.” As he spoke he began to rip the feathers off the chicken back in great handfuls.
He continued, “The people have need of many things that we are now giving them.” The chicken squawked and screeched in agony. Stalin’s grasp tightened. His iron grip held the bird firm as he calmly turned to the journalist and spoke. “It is a testament to the ability of man in this modern age that through the state we have overcome the individual weaknesses of greed and selfishness that have kept us from solving our problems.”
The journalist could hardly speak. He stared in horror as Stalin savaged the chicken clean of feathers. The bird nearly limp, convulsed slightly as Stalin placed it back on the ground. It staggered clumsily away, unlikely to have been able to process what was just done to it. A feeling of disgust covered over by fear was palpable upon the barnyard. Stalin reached into his pocket for a handful of grain and continued on as before to feed the chickens who flocked around him.
The journalist stammer, “What… Why…?” Stalin continued in response, “We are solving these problems. In Russia, as it should be in the entire world, from each according to his abilities and too each according to his need.” Stalin, identifying the wounded chicken he had just damaged creeping back toward the edge of the flock to peck at the bits of grain remaining on the ground, reached again into his jacket pocket and pulled out a fresh handful of grain. He knelt down a bit and held out his hand toward the injured animal.
It was reported that the bird looked for a moment, cocked its head to the slide a bit, and then timidly step toward Stalin. In a moment, it was eating the food right out of the hand that minutes before had torn the feathers right off it’s back. Stalin dropped the remaining grain on the ground stood and turned toward the journalist. Did that answer your question, he said.
The journalist hesitated, locked in a momentary state of emotional and mental chaos. He responded, “Yes sir, thank you.” as the full impact of the situation became clear in his mind.
Does this story remind you of something at home? To me, it graphically explains our followership problem in Nigeria. Beyond our over hyped leadership crisis, I strongly believe we should start focusing on our followership crisis. We – the citizens of Nigeria – have failed as much as our leaders have failed as our representatives. We have a long way to go, but the challenge is that we do not even know that we do not know. So, if you do not know how do you move forward? That’s our tragedy.
