Why We Follow Leaders, and When and Why We Don’t

Since the dawn of human existence, there have been leaders and followers. There is voluminous research and writing about leaders and leadership. There is much less written about followers and following. We know why leaders lead—they get status and benefits, and they can move others toward goals (their personal goals or shared goals). But why do followers follow, and importantly, when do they choose to not follow established leaders?

This is the topic of leadership scholar Barbara Kellerman’s new book, Why We Follow Leaders, and Why We Don’t. The book is one of the most detailed analyses of followership and the reasons for following (or not following).

Why We Follow Leaders

Kellerman begins with the premise that humans, like so many species of social animals, are “programmed” to follow—to be submissive. She also asserts that human civilization has built hierarchies and that those in subordinate positions typically default to the followership role. Drawing on both ethological and psychological theories, we tend to follow because it is in our best interests (we are rewarded, or not punished, for following—think obedience to authority and Milgram’s work). We also follow because others are following (conformity), or simply because of our tendency to go along, as the path of least resistance.

Obviously, as Kellerman notes in separate chapters, there are rewards given to willing followers and punishments for those who refuse to follow. Loyal followers often benefit from obediently following the leader, and followers who are reluctant or refuse to follow can be threatened and punished. Kellerman draws on numerous examples from work organizations, politics, and social movements.

Why Might We Refuse to Follow Leaders?

Perhaps the biggest contributions to our understanding of leadership and followership comes from Kellerman’s analysis of why normally submissive followers might refuse to follow a leader. In some instances, think of revolutions or workers going on strike, there are potential rewards (attainment of leadership positions, pay increases, respectively) for not following.

There may also be punishments as a result of following a leader—particularly a “bad” leader, as suggested by Hitler’s underlings who were held responsible, convicted, and sometimes executed because they argued that they were “simply following orders.” The example of the mass suicide/murder of the followers of the Reverend Jim Jones in Jonestown is a perfect example of how willingly following can lead to disaster.

In all of the discussion of followership, Kellerman emphasizes the importance of situational factors in whether followers choose to follow or resist. For example, if a leader falls out of favor due to bad behavior or leadership failures, followers may be reluctant to follow.

Given the fact that we are all followers at some level (Kellerman points out that as voters we are, by definition, followers of elected leaders, and most employees follow a supervisor/leader), understanding why and when we follow, and why we might choose to resist, is critically important. The negative stereotype of followers as “blind sheep” is only partially true, as there is a human tendency to go along and not “make waves.” There are, however, many instances where followers decide not to follow and may use their influence to resist. And, in the case of destructive and toxic leaders, it is imperative that followers resist, as it is the only way to bring down tyrants. I can also recommend Ira Chaleff’s recent book, To Stop a Tyrant.