Tom Finegan - Amplifiers

In this book, we make an important distinction between leaders and bosses, but not simply by juxtaposing leadership skills with management skills. Instead, we view leaders and bosses (or titled executives) as different ends of the same leadership continuum. They may hold the exact same job title and have the same responsibilities, but they may operate on different ends of the leadership continuum. Similarly, we view followers and subordinates as two ends to the followership continuum. Leaders are usually also bosses, and followers are usually subordinate to their leaders. The distinguishing factors that push them to one end of the continuum or the other are their individual styles, motives, and traits. These dynamics drive how they interact with others to get work done.

Most people think about leadership and followership as two ends of a continuum. However, in Figure 1.1, we show a matrix of leadership and followership behaviors. For the purposes of uncovering and discovering true Amplifiers in an organization, we map leaders and bosses on the same continuum on the vertical axis. We also map followers and subordinates on the same continuum on the horizontal axis. Note the intersection is slightly off-center because most organizations have a higher concentration of leaders and followers.

FIGURE 1.1Leaders, Titled Executives/Bosses, Followers, and Subordinates

It is important to note that the actual job function of the person at the top of an organization or function does not differ on the continuum of leaders and bosses. In fact, the activities are the same. We also assume for the purpose of Figure 1.1that individuals performing their roles are competent; the figure does not evaluate performance but the style in which they carry out their role. What does differ and, in fact, differs significantly, is the style in which they carry out their core job functions. It is the same for followers and subordinates. Followers and subordinates alike have work to do to complete their daily activities. How they conduct themselves and interact with their colleagues to get that work done is significantly different. The style and the nature of how they approach their work in the context of the broader organization and mission are what sets followers apart from subordinates.

One of the things that is amazing to me is the number of people who share with me their frustration when a colleague who has been promoted to be their boss lacks the requisite leadership skills. These individuals have excelled in their work product, have been exceptional employees, have demonstrated their ability to produce outstanding work, and seem to always reliably get the job done. They possess project planning skills, risk analysis, and the ability to budget and track status. But many times, an individual who possesses these functional subject matter expertise and perhaps even managerial expertise is recognized as a star worker, yet their peers on the team will not follow their lead. When the individual is promoted, the other team members shrug their shoulders in disbelief and commiserate with each other that they will now need to take direction from this newly promoted boss.

Why is it that some people amass followers and others do not? It's easy to spot a leader; just look for their followers. This is very different than looking for a manager and spotting their subordinates. For all the literature on leadership, there is very little that gets after the root cause to know why some people earn followers and some never will. Leaders have found ways to engage and inspire followers that may not exist in mere managers or bosses. Leaders need followers. Yet many leaders don't always understand the reason why their followers follow. Leaders may employ various methods to get work done, two of which are position power and influence. Leaders use these tools at different times for different types of work that needs to be done.

Position power stems from the formal authority vested in the leader simply because of their position in the organization's hierarchy. Position power enables the leader to force others to take action. It can be extremely effective at getting a lot of work done in a short period of time. Many leaders rely on position power when prompt action needs to occur or when they know they need some quick wins in order to gain broader momentum throughout the organization. But getting work done through position power is not sustainable as a long-term leadership strategy because it generally leads to resentment and disengagement by followers.

Conversely, leaders who rely on influence to get work done by their followers are able to use persuasion to convince the follower to take action. Influence is most effective when the leader has already established a strong relationship with the follower. The follower in turn trusts and respects the leader. This can be motivational for followers. Influence is far more sustainable because influence is the fuel for the engine of followership.

When you are the boss, people think you have followership. What you actually have are people executing orders or following your directions. Tim Hassinger, former CEO of Dow AgroSciences, shared with me one of his secret strategies for checking himself as he progressed throughout his career. “Leaders need to challenge themselves frequently. Honestly ask yourself: do they listen to me because I had a good idea or because I am the boss?” It's critical, especially for new bosses, to sit back and honestly self-assess this question. Everyone who gets promoted has typically received positive affirmation throughout their career. After being promoted to a position that oversees a team, department, business unit, or organization, leaders need to step back and have a regular method for self-appraisal by asking this key question.

Although challenging, the best organizations are able to differentiate between subordinates carrying out the boss's directions and followers who are genuinely inspired by their leader. Most evaluation systems and performance review processes do an excellent job on the measurable elements of job performance. Many have attempted to uncover or discover leadership traits and how they may apply to the individual, which can be fraught with implicit or explicit bias. However, few organizations evaluate or emphasize followership. In order for us to more fully understand leadership, we need to better understand followership. This is important because an Amplifier exists at the intersection of leadership and followership.

Let's look back at Figure 1.1. In quadrant A, we have the special blend of an organization that has leadership and followership. When companies and their corporate culture display behaviors that exist in this quadrant, they produce extraordinary results. The other interesting attribute about quadrant A is that here leaders and followers create legions of leaders and followers throughout the organization. When the flywheel is moving in this quadrant, organizations tend to dominate their markets.

The secret to how great leaders magnify the power of teams, increase the impact of organizations, and turn up the volume on positive change rests in unlocking these operating styles of the cream of the crop of the employee base in companies. The prized intersection of top-performing leaders and the top-performing followers are what we call Amplifiers . True Amplifiers are the key group of people in any company who activate the true potential of all stakeholders. Remember, employees can be in any quadrant regardless of their level within the company.