This is one of the "big three" books available on followership. But I found it a very difficult and largely unproductive read. Perhaps this is the reason I'm not finding Kellerman's name in much followership research. Kellerman seems almost more interested in attacking leadership than she is in promoting healthy followership. I haven't read her first book "Bad Leadership," but this book feels like it might be simply a continuation. Good followership is not just whistle-blowing, "getting the man" and "speaking truth to power." That is certainly a sad component that needs to be included in any followership conversation, but not to the extent Kellerman does. As a follower regularly serving mostly in leadership roles for the last twenty years, I find this attitude frustrating and unhelpful. While it is true our culture is dangerously obsessed with leadership, it is also true that most leaders are not bad, hurtful or inordinately evil people. At least not any more evil than me! Frankly, in my current area of service, many leaders serve because others simply refuse to step forward. Leaders need us to serve them well, not pick them apart at every turn. In my opinion, we don't need more studies of bad leadership - we need research on positive, healthy and effective followership. Any idiot can identify the leadership failures, I want to discover the followership success stories.
In the interest of full disclosure, I must also confess I found Kellerman's entirely one sided political perspective tedious and trying. As a military veteran, her lengthy discussion of the Anaconda operation in Afghanistan was particularly painful to read. Any experienced military follower understands that every operational plan lasts only until the first round goes down range. Was the Anaconda battle poorly planned and executed? Probably. Did the military bravado leave the soldier's minds once the bullets began to fly? Duh! It always does! Did the political situation adversely impact the execution of the battle? Yeah, it always does. But was the (admittedly poor) decision to avoid using artillery made principally for good, humanitarian reasons (minimize civilian casualties)? Categorically! And if artillery would have been used heavily and many innocent civilians killed during the battle, would Kellerman and others have been stumbling all over themselves to be gracious and kind to the Bush administration for their blood-thirsty, "kill them all and let God sort 'em out" aggressiveness? I sincerely doubt it. And finally, if the terrible final score of a battle is 767 terrorists killed versus 8 of ours lost, does that honestly qualify as the sort of utter military, leadership and followership debacle Kellerman is attempting to say it is? I hardly think so. Frankly, if everything Kellerman says about the operational planning and leadership failures is true, then perhaps the Anaconda operation is a stunning example of follower success in spite of poor leadership. Why not emphasize the great ways the followers managed to pull victory from the jaws of defeat? At the end of the day, some military operations go beautifully and some go very badly. This one sounds like it went badly, at least at the leadership level. But if badly ends up looking this good, I'll take badly every time.
I appreciate Kellerman's passion for followership, I truly do. I just wish it were more constructive. I don't need any help being negative about leadership...I can do that all by myself.
Posts
