Leadership is Half the Story

Leadership is Half the Story Plot Summary

Introduction

Imagine two dancers on a ballroom floor, moving in perfect harmony. The audience marvels at their synchronized movements, the seamless transitions, and the chemistry between them. What they might not realize is that behind this apparent magic lies not just talent, but a carefully choreographed partnership where one leads and one follows—and both roles are equally vital to the performance. In the modern workplace, we face a similar dynamic. For decades, we've glorified leadership while relegating followership to the shadows. We've created libraries full of leadership guides while barely acknowledging that effective followership requires its own distinct skillset. This imbalance has led to dysfunctional teams, toxic workplaces, and frustrated professionals who find themselves caught in a system that only values half of the partnership equation. The authors challenge this status quo by introducing a revolutionary framework that elevates followership to equal status with leadership, demonstrating through compelling research and real-world examples that true organizational success comes when both roles are understood, valued, and skillfully performed. By recognizing that leadership is indeed only half the story, we unlock the potential for more creative, productive, and fulfilling professional relationships—turning ordinary workplace interactions into truly generative partnerships.

Chapter 1: The Followership Revolution: When Support Becomes Leadership

Sam had been working at her company for 14 years when it was acquired by a larger firm. As controller of her business unit, responsible for revenues over $6 billion annually, she was one of the few executives offered a position after the merger. The new environment, however, presented unexpected challenges. Her boss constantly asked for updates, additional reports, and decision support—all with tight deadlines. What Sam didn't immediately recognize was that while her technical skills remained valuable, the partnership dynamics had completely changed. In her previous company, where she had grown up professionally, everyone felt empowered and the culture was warm and customer-focused. The new firm prioritized tight financial control and process management. Sam initially struggled, assuming that what had worked well before would continue to work. She was doing nothing differently despite the dramatic change in context. After a conversation with a colleague about followership as a distinct skill, Sam had an epiphany. She needed to take more initiative to build the partnership and get on her boss's wavelength. She began asking questions, trying new approaches, evaluating what worked, and adjusting accordingly. She changed how she updated her boss, how she presented information, and how she engaged in meetings. Most importantly, she took full accountability for building the relationship. Within six months, the dynamic had transformed. Sam and her boss developed such a strong working relationship that when her boss received a significant new opportunity, she asked Sam to join her team. What Sam discovered was that followership isn't passive compliance—it's an active, strategic set of skills that complements leadership and enables true partnership to flourish. The revolution here is recognizing that followership isn't subordinate to leadership but its equal counterpart. Excellent followers get more done, more effectively and efficiently. They facilitate teamwork, make managing easier, and extend the reach of leadership by finding opportunities, solving problems, and delighting customers. In today's collaborative workplace, the ability to switch fluidly between leadership and followership roles—regardless of formal title—is what drives exceptional performance.

Chapter 2: Dynamic Roles: Dancing Between Leadership and Followership

"Where are we going, fellas?" John Lennon would ask his bandmates during the early days of The Beatles when they felt down and out. "To the top, Johnny!" they'd respond. "Where's that, fellas?" "To the toppermost of the poppermost!" This shared vision bound them together through their struggles, fueling one of music's most creative partnerships. Over an eight-year period, The Beatles released 23 studio albums that sold over a billion copies worldwide. What made them so extraordinarily productive and innovative wasn't just individual talent but their ability to shift seamlessly between leadership and followership roles. While Lennon was the acknowledged leader of the group, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band—ranked by Rolling Stone as the greatest album of all time—was actually McCartney's concept. During the recording process, each band member brought forward his own songs and creative ideas, taking the lead on them while others supported. As Ringo Starr later reflected: "Sgt. Pepper was our grandest endeavor. The greatest thing about the band was that whoever had the best idea—it didn't matter who—that was the one we'd use. No one was standing on their ego, saying, 'Well, it's mine,' and getting possessive." Their producer, George Martin, often described as "the fifth Beatle," noted that "in the studio the group's leader was defined by the song they were working on." This dynamic role-switching created a partnership that was immensely productive, innovative, and agile. Were they simply the most talented individuals ever assembled? Probably not. Many supergroups have been formed with equally or even more individually talented musicians, but with disappointing results. And while each Beatle had success afterward, it doesn't compare to what they accomplished together. The magic of The Beatles demonstrates a fundamental principle: leadership and followership are not fixed roles but dynamic ones that should shift based on the situation, expertise, and goals. In today's collaborative workplaces, those who can recognize when to lead and when to follow—regardless of formal title—create more generative partnerships and achieve better results than those locked into rigid hierarchical thinking.

Chapter 3: Creating the Frame: How Leaders Enable Creative Initiative

Colonel Phillip S. Meilinger of the United States Air Force writes in his article on followership: "One colleague with whom I served several years ago would indulge in periodic gripe sessions with his subordinates at which time he would routinely criticize the commander and his decisions in front of the youngest troops. When asked why he was undermining the boss, he would reply sanctimoniously that his integrity would not allow him to lie; he thought the policies were idiotic, and he had a duty to tell his people how he felt." Meilinger's response was unequivocal: "Rubbish. Leadership is not a commodity to be bought at the price of followership." He explained that when subordinates ask whether you agree with a particular decision, the response should be that it's an irrelevant question—the boss has decided, and the team's job is to carry out those orders. This military example illuminates a critical concept: effective leadership involves setting a frame within which followers can create and contribute. Think of a picture frame—it separates the inside from the outside, adds to the beauty of the picture, and provides structure. Similarly, when leaders frame a problem or situation, they establish what are acceptable and unacceptable actions, resources, and solutions. They create appropriate constraints that enable rather than restrict creativity. Contrary to popular belief, a blank slate does not stimulate creativity and innovation. To illustrate this, try giving yourself 90 seconds to think up ten creative ideas. Most people stumble, pause, and then ask, "Creative ideas for what?" Now try: "Think up ten creative ideas for new breakfast items at your favorite restaurant." The constrained problem triggers swift, confident responses. People are far more creative and productive working within well-articulated constraints. This principle applies across domains. Poetry provides a perfect example. Structured forms like haiku, limericks, and sonnets enhance creativity rather than limit it. Everyone knows Shakespeare wrote sonnets, for example, and his sonnets are considered some of the best poems in English literature. The constraints of the form—14 lines with a specific rhyme scheme—didn't restrict his genius but channeled it. The art of leadership framing involves setting a clear direction and boundaries while leaving ample space for creativity within them. Effective followers recognize this balance and think outside the box while staying inside the frame. Just as The Beatles understood the rules of commercial radio before breaking them, employees build credibility by working effectively within the frame before attempting to change it.

Chapter 4: The Connection Imperative: Building Trust Through Engagement

"I was waiting for two team members to join me for a conference call when I received a meeting decline from May-Ling," Sam recalled. "Charles, my director, came in soon after and told me that May-Ling had decided not to come. 'Decided not to come?' I asked. 'What's up?' Looking sheepish, he explained, 'She decided to stay at her desk and work.' Charles knew we had expressly invited May-Ling as an opportunity to learn about the varied perspectives of our internal customers." May-Ling had thought three people attending a meeting seemed inefficient. The problem was, Sam had already made the decision that she should attend. While it would have been fine for May-Ling to clarify the reasons, unilaterally overruling the decision at the last minute undermined the partnership. This situation illustrates what Jeff, a salsa dancing instructor, taught the authors about partnership: "The key to a great partnership is having a great connection. I'm not talking about chemistry, I'm talking about technique." He emphasized that both partners needed to "lean in" just so—shifting weight slightly forward, into the partner, applying appropriate pressure. Too little pressure and connection is lost; too much restricts movement. In workplace partnerships, this principle translates to finding what the authors call "the generative point"—the optimal level of understanding, communication, trust, and support that enables partnerships to thrive. On one extreme is the hands-off approach: "I'm very independent" or "I know my job better than my boss" or "I am most effective when left alone." This stance prevents meaningful connection and makes coordinating efforts nearly impossible. On the other extreme is micromanagement, which stifles initiative and consumes all available energy. Google's groundbreaking Project Oxygen research revealed that the behaviors most prized by employees included: being a good coach, empowering the team without micromanaging, expressing interest in team members' success and well-being, being a good communicator and listener, and helping with career development. As Laszlo Bock, VP of People Operations, noted: "In the Google context, we'd always believed that to be a manager, particularly on the engineering side, you needed to be as deep or deeper a technical expert than the people who work for you. It turns out that's absolutely the least important thing. Much more important is just making that connection and being accessible." The art of connection requires both partners to lean in—not too much, not too little. Leaders who maintain appropriate connection empower their teams without abandoning them. Followers who lean in build stronger relationships with their leaders, anticipate needs, and contribute more effectively. Both sides must continually work to find and maintain the generative point where partnership flourishes.

Chapter 5: Shared Vision: Making Goals a Collaborative Adventure

The Beatles created music that revolutionized an industry and defined a generation. Then, in the late sixties, they drifted apart and ultimately disbanded. Why? Their goals were no longer deeply shared. George was spending more time on his own music and had become a devotee of Indian culture. John was pursuing avant-garde music and political activism. Ringo was composing more and receiving acclaim for his acting. Only Paul remained interested in pop music and wished to do more of the same. He wanted to Get Back while everyone else just wanted to Let It Be. Without shared goals, even the most brilliant partnership couldn't sustain itself. Shared goals drive collaboration rather than competition. They increase teamwork and help ensure that resources are pulling in the same direction. But many goal-setting processes miss the mark because goals can easily appear shared yet are not. True goal-sharing has three critical dimensions. First, goals must be shared with someone. A personal goal is important for individual performance, but it doesn't provide impetus for better partnerships. When goals are truly shared, they come with commitment from both parties. Consider an example where you and your manager decide you should develop better negotiation skills. The plan includes taking a course and then renegotiating a supplier contract. If a large new project hits your department before the course, or if a senior manager tells your boss the contract is essential to his performance evaluation, what happens to your development goal? If it's truly shared, your boss remains committed despite competing priorities. Second, goals must be shared throughout teams and organizations. A product development team at a large electronics company struggled to reduce their two-year development cycle to the market-demanded 18 months. Engineers valued technological advancement and exciting features, while operations prioritized quick production ramp-up, low rejection rates, and extensive warranties. These conflicting goals created a cycle where engineers would send prototypes to operations, who would return them with suggestions on what to cut for easier building. Only after exposing these different goals could they have a healthy dialogue over ways to improve the process. Third, shared goals are different from same goals. When a VP told an IT team to get work done 10% faster, the project director assigned each person the goal of completing their tasks 10% faster. The architect sped up her design and passed it to the developer, who rushed to produce code faster. But the quality assurance person couldn't possibly test rushed code built on a hastily assembled design. The real result was an overall increase in production time! Same goals use identical language but can be completed without input from others. Shared goals require true interdependence—the collective effort of the team working together toward a common objective. When goals are deeply shared across these three dimensions, they create a platform for extraordinary collaboration and generative partnerships where the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Chapter 6: Performance Partnership: Signals That Drive Excellence

Tim was asked to review a proposal by his team of senior engineers for a new theme park ride. After they presented their work, Tim responded with kudos and specific remarks about what he particularly liked. Once the engineers felt comfortable that they'd succeeded and met expectations, Tim asked: "Now, pretend you had more time and more money to take this to the next level. What would you do next? Where would you take it? What would make it even better?" Tim demonstrated a key principle of performance partnership: first value the positive, then build on it. Rather than focusing on what was wrong or missing from the proposal, he acknowledged the engineers' success before challenging them to think bigger. This approach maintains engagement while pushing for even better results—a strategy backed by substantial research showing that positive teamwork, positive relationships, and positive leadership improve every measurable organizational outcome. Clear signals are equally crucial to high-performance partnerships. The authors' salsa dancing instructor explained that the leader's job is to plan ahead and give appropriate signals about direction and movement, while the follower's responsibility is to be alert to these signals, interpret them correctly, and respond accordingly. In business, unclear or mixed signals lead to poor performance, frustration, and disengagement. One key insight from dance is that leadership and followership are not simultaneous actions but a seamless flow of signals from leader to follower and back again. There is an "AND moment"—a pause where the leader shifts direction and the follower interprets before responding. Without this moment, coordination becomes impossible. Similarly, in organizations, effective signaling requires both commitment and timing. Leaders show commitment by "moving from the core"—demonstrating full investment in a direction rather than tentative suggestion. Followers show engagement by remaining alert to these core movements and using the AND moment to interpret and respond. Performance partnership also requires both commitment and engagement. A common question in workshops is "How can I make my team more engaged?" This framing misses a fundamental truth: engagement is a personal choice, not something management creates. Leadership commitment and followership engagement are complementary sides of a psychological contract. As Gandhi wisely noted, "We must be the change we wish to see in the world." Leaders demonstrate commitment through visible investment in people and priorities; followers demonstrate engagement through initiative and accountability. The highest-performing partnerships combine clear signals, positive reinforcement, and mutual commitment. When both sides understand their distinct yet complementary roles in the performance equation, ordinary interactions transform into extraordinary results.

Chapter 7: The Agile Organization: Navigating Change Together

Sea squirts are fascinating marine creatures that begin life as tadpole-like organisms with primitive nervous systems, including a small brain. When a juvenile sea squirt finds a suitable place to settle, it attaches to a surface and then—remarkably—eats its own brain! It remains there permanently, beautiful but immobile. If the environment changes, the sea squirt, having sacrificed its capacity for movement and adaptation, simply dies. This biological curiosity offers a powerful metaphor for organizational agility. In today's rapidly changing workplace, those who "eat their brains"—who become so fixated on current practices that they lose their capacity to sense and respond to change—face extinction. Agility, not mere adaptation, has become the essential workplace competency. The 2012 IBM CEO Study, Leading through Connections, surveyed over 1,700 CEOs about what makes an employee "future-proof." Across industries and geographies, they consistently highlighted four critical characteristics: being collaborative, communicative, creative, and flexible. CEOs acknowledged that it's "virtually impossible to find the future skills they will need—because they don't yet exist." In an era of unprecedented speed and interpersonal change, organizations and individuals must develop agility—the ability to move from situation to situation quickly and surely. Developing organizational agility requires three interconnected approaches. First, always be learning—continually seek new information, gain new skills, build self-awareness, and try new things. Second, develop partnership agility—be intentional in building relationships using tools, checklists, and methods that enable you to develop this skill as you would a technical one. Third, understand and navigate organizational culture—learn to decipher the unwritten rules, values, and norms that govern behavior. Anne Lavender, executive director of leadership for Waterloo region, recalls one of her best mentoring experiences: "I was invited to the table as a full participant in the learning process. She (my mentor) made me feel like she was getting just as much out of the time we spent together as I was." This mutual learning exemplifies the new approach to organizational agility, where mentoring isn't just for newcomers, top talent, or junior staff, but a reciprocal process that benefits everyone involved. The leadership role in organizational agility is to mentor others on how to navigate and thrive within the workplace. The followership role is to actively seek mentoring, be observant, develop networks, and drive personal learning and development. Both roles are essential, and neither depends on hierarchical position. Mars implemented a formal reverse mentoring program where frontline staff mentor senior executives—even "[the] president is mentored by one of our students on Millennials and social media." In an age where the only constant is change, those who develop organizational agility—the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn quickly—will thrive while those who cling to rigid patterns will, like the sea squirt, find themselves unable to respond when their environment inevitably transforms.

Summary

Throughout this exploration of leadership and followership, we've encountered a revolutionary perspective: truly generative partnerships require both roles to be understood, valued, and skillfully performed. The traditional view that elevates leadership while diminishing followership has left us with incomplete teams, dysfunctional organizations, and frustrated professionals. By recognizing that leadership is indeed only half the story, we unlock tremendous potential for more creative, productive, and fulfilling workplace relationships. The core principles revealed through the stories and research presented offer a practical framework for building partnerships that exceed the sum of their parts. Leadership becomes not about command and control but about setting frames that enable creation. Followership transforms from passive compliance to active, strategic contribution. Both partners must lean in to find the generative point of optimal connection, value the positive while building on it, and commit to deeply shared goals that align their efforts. When signals are clear and roles are understood as equal, dynamic, and different, extraordinary results become possible. As The Beatles demonstrated in their creative partnership, the person with "the best idea" should lead regardless of formal position, creating an environment where ego takes a backseat to collective genius. This fluid movement between roles—knowing when to lead and when to follow—is what distinguishes ordinary teams from those capable of producing work that changes the world.

About Author

Loading...

Marc Hurwitz

Read more