Followship AND Leadership – Part 2. In Part 1 of this two Part series comparing Leadership and Followership, I jumped in and conducted an intuitive comparison between the two concepts. In Part 2, I will use a Polarity Map to give another perspective and flush out my understanding of these two related roles.
I am only going to peripherally discuss the theory surrounding Polarity Maps. I would recommend the book “And: Making A Difference by Leveraging Polarity, Paradox or Dilemma” Vol 1 and 2 by Barry Johnson. I also recommend listening to the episode “Leading, Following and Polarity Thinking – Lindsay Burr” on Sharnia Fabiano’s Lead and Follow Podcast.
A Polarity Map for Leadership and Followership looks like this:

I believe that polarity maps help us get away from the polarising rhetoric and logic of todays world. We traditionally see “polarity” as meaning opposite. But instead of one OR the other, we change the idea to one AND the other. Polarity maps are founded on the idea that two truths can exist at the same time. (I love this concept) It translates as activity AND rest, reflect AND take action. For the benefit of the team, system or the individual, you need both sides of the polarity. In addition, too much of one, without the other, manifests in a negative.
My understanding of polarity mapping is to place the two polar ideas/concepts opposite each other and map out the positive and detracting skills and behaviours associated with both of them. In so doing it usually becomes apparent that the positive skills or behaviours on one side of the map require the positives of the other to keep it in balance. If not balanced, the behaviours of one side begin to manifest into detracting behaviours. The best example to illuminate this is Humility – Confidence. In balance, the behaviours and skills are complimentary. Unbalanced, overconfidence can manifest into narcissistic behaviours and ignore even rational thought. Humility unchecked can manifest as insecurities, anxiety and inaction.
I have seen polarity maps used for specific elements of leadership and followership (i.e. directive – participative) but never the roles themselves. I will map out my initial insights in the Positive and Negative behaviours associated with what I know of leadership and followership. It is my hypothesis that “and” is the way to go and not “either/or.” I believe this will show that a balance needs to exist and that they are complimentary concepts. All this should dispel the modern mantra of “be a leader NOT a follower” and show that leadership and followership are related and complimentary roles.
I should mention as a disclaimer that there are experts that use Polarity Maps all the time and are very skilled at facilitating and interpreting them. I am not one of them. As is the practice of using a Polarity Map, I created a greater purpose statement to focus my thoughts. Well, I created an initial one that was;
“I want to best blend (balance) the behaviours & skills of good leadership and followership.”
But as I started mapping out the behaviours and skills…then tried to draw some conclusions, I realised that my purpose statement was not helpful and waaaaaay too vanilla. It did not answer the deep question as to WHY exploring this is important to me. (This is where an expert would have come in handy) So I dug deep and was much happier with this:
“Mutual loyalty, respect, and trust required for operational effectiveness are only gained by being a good leader and follower.”
My final preparation step was to articulate my underlying fear:
“I have/will never truly understand either one, and as such led and will continue to lead through positional authority.”

So What?
What you see above is my mind working through these two concepts. Although I could have kept on listing a very expansive number of skills or qualities for leadership and followership, I listed out what I saw were the most beneficial (positive) behaviours and skills of leaders and followers. I thereafter worked through how I saw them manifest negatively if not checked by the benefits of the other, and listed those non-desirable skills or behaviours. There were some overlaps in terms of wording that I just ignored for the purpose of simplicity. For example, engaged and collaborative could be seen as being identical, but I saw them a tad differently. I also must say that there are so many micro and macro ways that I could have deconstructed these two roles. In fact, if I waited a few days and started another one from a blank page I am not sure that I would end up with the same lists, and it most likely would be just as revealing and informative.
My time teaching critical thinking ingrained in me that deductions must be concrete to be of benefit. But some of the results for me were esoteric. In looking at the positive and negative elements of each side it became apparent that negative manifestations were totally different from one side to the other, while positive ones are very similar between the two sides. I concluded that this was a result of the very different roles and the context of being either a leader of a team vs one of its members. I also concluded that, since it is “My” polarity map, ergo my thoughts and beliefs, I therefore believe that the skills and behaviours that make good leaders are very similar to those of good followers. From professionalism to being trustworthy, engaged and collaborative, to dedicated and innovative, both good leaders and followers must demonstrate these skills and behaviours. They differ in their application due to the different roles, but the skills themselves are the same.
Contrarily, I mostly see bad leaders distinctly different than bad followers. The narcissistic leader spreading toxic behaviours and taking unwarranted risks is the result of what I see as the principal negatives of leader behaviours. This differs significantly from the ineffective, or incompetent, risk averse and overly bureaucratic poor follower that resulted from my analysis.
When I drilled down into some of the specific skills or behaviours, other insights emerged. Concerning the behaviour or quality of caring, I realised that a leader can be caring to the point of paralysing the organisation and the mission. This is associated with effectiveness in decision making or “decisiveness.” The over abundance of caring could result in the opposite of decisiveness which is risk aversion or paralysis. This is one area where I saw a similarity with negative behaviours between leaders and followers. However, I believe that it is in the source of this paralysis where the difference lies. For leaders it is an over abundance of care, while for followers I think the source lies in their professionalism. Being professionally masterful is an essential skill for a good follower. But a follower can hold on to an opinion as to what works and what does not work to a point that the only way to do something is the way you decide it should be done. In this manner, no matter what the organisation decides, the follower uses their expertise to affect the outcomes removing the decision making from the leader. This can result in the same paralysis within a team or organisation.
On the other end of that negative behaviour scale, inspired leaders can be blinded by their desire to innovate and achieve. Mixed with a dose of ego and under the guise of mission accomplishment, they sacrifice safety, take risks beyond their scope, and ignore the advice of experts.
This immediately led me to see that risk averse followers can actively undermine sagely considered and innovative plans based upon misguided or ill-founded thoughts of change, or loss in personal prestige. They might use any variety of tools at their disposal to ensure that innovation and decisiveness are not able to be adequately exercised by leaders. I began to see that my polarity map was hyper complicated. I did not see these roles as being present in a single individual but omni present and dynamic within multiple roles simultaneously. Therefore, the interactions and possible outcomes were hard to analyse. BUT….it did help me to see more clearly the duality of the map, especially the mutually positive and negative elements of both sides.
I think that it is important to footnote that I considered loyalty, respect and trust as being encompassed by the word “trust.” I know that this is not necessarily so. But when I began to unpack my greater purpose statement within the polarity map and analyse the skills and behaviours, the nuanced and intricate elements surrounding loyalty did not seem to add to the analysis, at least at the macro level.
What next?
I am not leading a team, nor am I a member of one anymore. But if I was, I would begin to journal on the various skills and behaviours that came out of my polarity map. I would do it one at a time. The idea here is to do self assessment and see what specific things need to be improved upon (or sustained) to enable a better balance of skills. Next you have a choice. One option would be to share your analysis with your team. Bring a number of very detailed questions about skills, the balance and where the balance is out from both a leader and follower perspective, and then develop action plans to rebalance things. The other option is to take the time for the entire team to walk through and develop a map together. The same analysis and action plans need to be developed after that. By having the team walk through the exercise together there is definitely more bu- in to the action plans. But more than that the entire team would thereafter be attuned to where the balance is out, or if things evolve, when the tide turns to negative.
The idea here is to develop leaders, the team, the culture, and the training and development system of your organisation. Putting institutional governance in place that supports and monitors this would thereafter institutionalise these practices.
Conclusions for Part 1 and 2
In Part 1, I employed an intuitive method to show that leadership and followership are mutually beneficial behaviours. In Part 2 I pounded my way through a polarity map that illuminated how linked, and contextually different leadership and followership are. As I step back and look at the intuitive and polarity map approaches, a few truths emerged for me:
- Good leaders and good followers share many similar skills and behaviours,
- The roles of leadership and followership are different
- This means that not everyone is well suited for all roles
- Risk management, inspiration, example, accountability and decision making seem to be the purview of leaders, but not exclusively
- Collaboration, innovation and professional mastery seem to be the purview of good followership, but not exclusively
- Humility and trust are essential for positive leadership and followership
- There are limits to what good leadership can accomplish
But to me, this exercise has illuminated the symbiotic relationship between leadership and followership. It has reinforced that which I always espoused while in the military; that everyone has a boss, and that every leader is a member of a “peer group team.” The more that we as leaders and followers demonstrate empathy with our teammates, leaders, and peers, the better leader and followers we are. Finally, that the exploring of these concepts in different ways helps me understand just a little bit better, what it takes to be a better leader and coach, which is to be a better follower as well.