Behavior-Based Leadership
and Followership
Training
Founded 2010
We support
AUGUST 15, 2025
Can You Be a Friend and a Leader (or Follower) Equally?
In professional environments, shifts in workplace dynamics often occur when peers are promoted into leadership roles. This can result in perceived changes in behavior, leading to statements such as, “He was such a good guy until he promoted,” or “She used to be just like us, now she acts like management.” These sentiments reflect the discomfort some followers feel when a peer relationship transitions into a leader-follower dynamic.
The reality is that a promotion does not merely signify a change in title—it indicates a shift in responsibility and role expectations (Northouse, 2022). Once someone assumes a leadership position, the relational context shifts from (peer-to-peer) to (leader-follower) with different expectations, and both parties must acknowledge and adapt to this change for the organization to function equitably and effectively (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
But Can’t They Still Be My Friend *and* My Leader?
From a behavioral standpoint, it is possible to maintain cordial, respectful, and even friendly relations; however, the roles of “leader” and “follower” come with different obligations. The leader may now exercise different forms of power—legitimate, referent, or coercive—and followers must decide how they will respond (French & Raven, 1959). For instance, if a follower underperforms, how should feedback or disciplinary action from a former peer now acting as a supervisor be received? If the follower views the feedback through the lens of friendship, they may discount it, assuming leniency or favoritism. This undermines the credibility of the leader and potentially causes dysfunction within the team (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
Followers play a pivotal role in co-creating the leadership process and shaping team culture (Carsten et al., 2010). When followers knowingly leverage friendship to avoid accountability or benefit from favoritism, they erode the fairness perceived by others. Conversely, followers who recognize and respect the new expectations can reinforce the integrity of the team’s mission and maintain the trust of colleagues.
The Challenge of In-Groups and Equity
Social identity theory suggests that in-group favoritism can emerge when personal relationships influence professional decisions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This can lead to resentment, decreased motivation among out-group members, and equity concerns regarding assignments or recognition. From the follower perspective, this perception may cause them to question whether merit or relationship proximity is the primary driver of opportunity. Leaders must be aware of these dynamics, and followers must also consider how their own behavior, if unchecked, might contribute to these outcomes.
Leading and Following with Professional Integrity
Leaders have a duty to align behavior with organizational goals. Friendship should not override the core responsibilities of leadership (or followership). However, this does not mean that leaders must be authoritarian or unapproachable. Instead, they must create professional boundaries and clarify expectations for both personal and professional interactions. Followers, likewise, must acknowledge that their former peer has accepted a different role and respect the change accordingly.
Organizational perspectives are, "You must be the leader first"—not to abandon friendship, but to prioritize the responsibility of completing the goals of the organization. This is the reason for the promotion and added responsibility. It is the expectation of leadership. Equally, effective followers support leadership by aligning their own behaviors with organizational norms and team goals. This mutual adjustment affirms the science of leadership and followership as a co-agency of behaviors, co-influencing, co-creating leadership processes.
Putting It All Together
Leadership and followership are not simply roles; they are sets of behaviors shaped by context, power dynamics, and mutual influence. If both leaders and followers commit to maintaining professional boundaries, clear communication, and respect for role-based responsibilities, it is possible to sustain friendly relationships without compromising organizational integrity. As Lincoln once said, “If you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” For both leader and follower, character is revealed not just in power, but in how they respect and support one another’s evolving roles.
References
British Army, Centre For Army Leadership, 20230810-followership_doctrine_note- 2024
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). University of Michigan.
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Northouse, P. G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007