In any organization, enterprise or work place there are two types of employees. One group tries to distance itself from the powers that be, the boss. The employees in the other group try as much as they can to be recognized by the boss.
A nod or smile from the boss sends ripples of excitement and enthusiasm down their persons. They paste a woebegone sulk on their faces when not recognized or when something is not done about the suggestions they put across in the last meeting. When we talk of being recognized it is not just by any Tom, Dick and Harry, but by ‘the ones who matter'. Employees of this strain and nature are so rife in our work places, in Africa and the world over. Their joy is full when they stand out in the crowd of employees and their names mentioned fondly over coffee by the bosses. That's where their efforts gravitate towards. Take for instance, in most organizations and workplaces there are eight stipulated working hours. Our do-gooders will put in an extra hour ‘finishing some piece of work' or ‘writing that report needed on the MD's desk by Friday evening' or something as far-fetched as, say, ‘photocopying all the documents in my department. Anything may happen, you know'. Their clever pretexts are camouflaged in ostentatious amounts of hard work. Their aim is nothing more than to show that they are hard workers. That's their trump card.
‘If only you had the commitment shown by so and so...' becomes a crystallized phrase used by the boss in meetings. Their output becomes the yard stick by which fellow workers' efforts are judged. They tend to tip the balance of the management's decision to their own favour; they have proved they are committed and can ‘deliver the goods'. Some employees will cash in on this situation. To gain a firmer grip on the manager's confidence, they gradually start reporting on fellow workers' escapades and ‘behaviour' at the workplace. These may range from comments about the boss to the quality of the tea and writing paper to the ‘horrible' salary scales. Practically anything that would guarantee their sail into the boss' good books would do for them. Things start happening. People are demoted, some fired, and memos start flying onto virtually every desk. Anyone who ‘inadvertently yawns' in the presence of the self- conscripted mole feels the heat. Fellow workers who get wind of who is initiating such a goings-on start nurturing an acrimonious attitude towards such colleagues. Unity at the work place is sacrificed on the altar of indifference. This portends a devastating end in the long term. Work output fluctuates and employees turnover inconsistency has a stem rollers effect on their morale and potential.
The status quo should be remedied before things get out of hand. For any organization to succeed then, the leaders and followers (read employees) are to follow certain ethics that will guarantee corporate satisfaction. Leaders are created, shaped and highly dependent on their followers. The two are not isolated entities; they exist in a mutual, reciprocal relationship by which each moulds, shapes and gives rise to the other.
The frontline worker is accountable. The executive VP occupies a followership role to the CEO and the CEO is in a followership position to the board of directors. Even exemplary leaders, at times, must function as followers. So, it means the employees in any company shape it. This is because they create and shape their leaders who in turn chart out their course of action. Employees who curry favour with their bosses will not create and shape the right type of leaders. This only follows logically.
Robust followers, employees who are secure enough to not need to curry favour and behave sycophantly, feel at ease with their managers and are comfortable with their own independent thinking and assertive behaviour. They engage in constructive debate and offer valuable feed back about their boss' managerial style, broadening the manager's conceptual perspective and sharpening his/her leadership skills.
In addition, robust followers, can relate themselves and their roles to the ‘bigger picture' of how the overall organization functions, and do not experience themselves as merely an isolated cog in a lone wheel. The spirit of a true champion should be championed for at our workplaces. Champions do not propose to be considered as champions. What they do does the talking for them. The once lily-white fabric of the conventional workplace aura should be allowed to start gleaming and shining once more instead of dilly-dallying and wasting time in fruitless pursuits.
Trackback(0)
 |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
How followers/employees behave wholly depends on what kind of leadership is being imparted.Bureaucracy tends to breed contempt in workplaces because employees are awarded according to the amount of knowledge they have which encourages hoarding of knowledge, and discourages teamwork.Consequently an ingratiating competition among employees/followers for their leaders favor is inevitable.When there are less bureaucratic chains and open door leadership is practised strife between the followers is greatly reduced.In return the leaders should be able to give employees/followers a level of independence,which will foster a level of trust and innovative thinking among workers, instead of 'robots' that follow instructions who require constant approval by their bosses as is common with the followers/employees under bureaucratic leadership.