Alienated Followers

In order for any syndicate to function in the world, some structure of leadership must be established so that when various affairs and problems arrive, they may be handled both efficiently and ethically. In this abstract, I will seek to define the process of leadership; how it runs, who does what, as well as the subcomponents that are absolutely essential for the process to operate. Once the process has been defined and established, I will point out the overlying crisis that is primarily responsible for the diminish in function in the process of leadership. Examples will be provided showing how widespread the problem is and its effect on a multitude of fields. From there, the next step would be to uncover the causes of the crisis and effectively

A leader cannot lead unless there are followers to be led. The followers make up the majority of the organization and act as the workforce so tasks can be accomplished. Within the broad category of followers, they can be further divided into subcategories with different traits. The four types of followers are derived from Harvard Business Review writer Robert Kelley and his model of followership. Alienated followers are those who can be capable workers however have cynical tendencies. While they may be reluctant at first in fear of offending their superiors, alienated followers can be useful in pointing out flaws within projects or systems. Conformist followers on the opposite spectrum are active workers who effectively complete tasks without question. Conformists are known for their reliability. Passive followers resemble sheep in many ways; they rely on their superiors to heavily aid them when judgement and critical thinking is required and need direction in order to progress. Passive followers along with conformists tend to make up the largest populations within the follower group as a whole. Lastly, exemplary followers are the most independent and innovative of the followers. They are very self-confident and will not hold back questioning their superiors if they feel something needs to be addressed. These followers are

Leaders blame their subordinates for not effectively performing their role as leaders, subordinates blame their followers for the lack of progress, followers blame their superiors for the lack of direction, and many times the evaluators will blame the leader because he or she is responsible. This sense of constant blaming demonstrates the lack of personal accountability within the culture and better yet, a lack of skin-in-the-game (the true crisis afoot). Skin-in-the-game as defined by author Nassim Taleb, is keeping the probabilistic downside for the risks you take; “the captain goes down with the ship”. If one does not have skin-in-the-game, they would be able to take a risk and not suffer the consequences of failing because they can simply transfer the downside to others. If one were to go even further on the opposite end of the spectrum by having soul-in-the-game, this person would choose to receive the downside so that others may benefit. A simple word to describe soul-in-the-game is sacrifice. Picture a heroic figure or martyr in history who died for a cause they deeply believed in for the sake of