What If Follower Style Was the Only Difference in a Leadership Complaint?

When organizations struggle with leadership challenges, the immediate assumption is often that the leader’s style is at fault. We hear statements like, “People don’t leave bad jobs, they leave bad managers.”  We have been conditioned to apply the Fundamental Attribution Error and assume it is the “actor (leader)” who is causing the problem. So, we rush to assess whether they are too autocratic, too laissez-faire, or not transformational or servant-leader enough. But what if the issue doesn’t lie with the leadership style at all? What if the friction, miscommunication, or underperformance we see in teams is rooted in followership style instead?

The leadership process is co-created by both leader and follower, so where does the responsibility sit?

Followership is often the forgotten side of organizational dynamics, yet it plays a vital role in shaping how the leadership process is experienced. A leader’s effectiveness is not created in a vacuum, it is co-created through the behaviors, mindsets, and engagement levels with their followers. Just as leadership styles vary, followership styles (whether passive, conformist, pragmatic, alienated, or exemplary) determine how individuals respond in a given context or situation in such areas as direction, authority, and collaboration.

Reframing the problem from “What’s wrong with the leader,” to “How are followers engaging with leaders in a given context,” offers a radical shift in perspective. Leaders may struggle not because their style is inherently flawed, but because they are paired with followership styles that either resist, undermine, or simply disengage from their efforts. Understanding this interplay is essential if we want to move from blame to balance, and from frustration to functional collaboration.

Leaders and followers co-create their relationships much like the two sides of a coin. One side cannot exist without the other, and both together form the whole. It is not solely the leader’s charisma or strategy, nor only the follower’s commitment or engagement, which makes or breaks the relationship. Instead, the quality of their interaction arises from how each side complements the other through trust, communication, and responsiveness. Just as a coin derives its value from the inseparability of its two sides, leadership relationships gain strength when leaders and followers recognize their shared responsibility in shaping outcomes.

The value of the coin is the same for both sides.

As an example: In a recent consulting I was faced with a Senior manager and a junior manager who was the direct report of the senior manager. In this situation the junior manager accused the Senior manager of micromanaging, undermining authority, damage to morale and trust, chain of command confusion, unclear or unattainable communication expectations along with hostile and unprofessional communication.

After working with both individuals separately, I asked them to complete several organizational self-assessment tools/surveys to better understand them. When I compared the results from each of these tools both were almost identical (within 1-2 points/categories, etc.), with the exception of one set of results, their follower style. Both of these people are “middle managers,” albeit at different organizational levels, and both lead and follow simultaneously. Because of this I was asking myself, could their followership style differences cause this much chaos in their relationship, and the answer I came up with is a resounding yes. Here’s how:

After completing an analysis of the complaint, and digging deep into the behaviors of each follower style, then comparing the behaviors of the follower styles this is what I found:

The Senior manager was a remarkably high “Exemplary Follower,” Only a few points from the max Active Engagement Scale and only one point away from the max critical thinking scale (which matches their level of job function in the organization). The Junior manager was a very middle of the middle “Pragmatist Follower,” just one point inside the exemplary area on critical thinking scale and two points from center on the active engagement scale.

Some of the identified challenges of this difference were:

1. The  senior manager may get frustrated that their direct report is not taking initiative or showing the same drive. The pragmatist junior manager may feel pressured or overwhelmed by the senior manager’s intensity.

2. The senior manager might interpret the pragmatist junior manager’s silence or neutrality, irrelevant, or disengagement, while the pragmatist junior manager may view the leader’s requests for ideas as unnecessary pressure and micromanaging.

3. The Senior manager may want to advance multiple and bold initiatives, but the pragmatist junior manager may slow-walk them or seek to reduce changes to minimize risk that they may perceive as a threat to themselves or their team.

4. The senior manager may see the pragmatist junior manager as lacking passion and drive, while the pragmatist junior manager may perceive the senior manager as idealistic, unrealistic, over-bearing, or micromanaging.

5. The biggest challenge is misalignment of expectations and pace. The senior manager may want innovation and initiative, while the pragmatist follower may prefer caution and status quo depending on what suits them best. This is also reflected in communication, much like in the original complaint.

6. When the senior manager(leader) is an exemplary follower-style (highly engaged, critical thinker, initiative-taking, open communicator), and their junior manager (direct report) is a pragmatist follower-style (cautious, adaptive, middle-of-the-road). Communication challenges tend to emerge from differences in depth, frequency, risk tolerance, feedback loops, and engagement vs. compliance. Let’s look at each one. 

a.     Depth of Communication

• Exemplary senior manager: Communicates in a way that seeks meaning, context, and improvement. They expect conversations to go beyond surface-level updates.

•  Pragmatist junior manager: Provides “just enough” information to stay in compliance and avoid mistakes. They are less likely to volunteer deeper insights.

• Challenge: The senior may see the junior as shallow or withholding, while the junior may view the senior’s probing as unnecessary or burdensome.

b.     Frequency & Initiative

• Exemplary senior manager: Anticipates that their direct reports will initiate dialogue, provide proactive updates, and seek feedback regularly.

• Pragmatist junior manager: Communicates when asked, or when necessary, but is unlikely to over-communicate or “bother” their leader.

• Challenge: The senior may feel they’re constantly pulling information, while the junior may feel the senior is demanding too much,

c.     Risk and Transparency

• Exemplary senior manager: Comfortable with candid, even uncomfortable conversations wanting honesty, including open respectful criticism of processes or decisions.

• Pragmatist junior manager: Avoids controversial or risky statements, preferring safe, neutral, or conformist communication.

• Challenge: The senior may view the junior as evasive or resistant to accountability. The junior may perceive the senior as “too blunt” or as putting them in jeopardy by expecting risky disclosures.

d.     Feedback Loop

• Exemplary senior manager: Sees feedback as mutual and developmental. They expect juniors to both receive and give constructive feedback.

• Pragmatist junior manager: May interpret upward feedback as unsafe or politically unwise, so they remain neutral or noncommittal. May become more “conformist” and just do what they are told.

• Challenge: The senior feels the junior is not contributing to growth; the junior feels feedback is one-directional and risky to offer.

e.     Engagement vs. Compliance

• Exemplary senior manager: Looks for communication that shows energy, buy-in, and ownership. Wants the junior manager to understand “the why” behind the decisions.

• Pragmatist junior manager: Communicates to stay “in the middle,” avoiding extremes of enthusiasm or negativity. Leans towards conformist, passive or occasionally alienated styles depending on the issue.

• Challenge: The senior may see the junior as uncommitted or disengaged, while the junior may feel pressured to “perform” excitement they don’t naturally feel.

Communication Bottom Line:

The communication challenge is one of mismatched expectations:

• The exemplary senior manager expects depth, initiative, transparency, and mutual feedback.

• The pragmatist junior manager delivers safe, cautious, measured communication designed to avoid risk.

If unaddressed, this leads to frustration: the senior may think the junior lacks drive or honesty, while the junior may think the senior is over-demanding or pushing for unsafe candor.

Conclusion

When I presented these findings to both people involved and explained the differences in style and the resulting behaviors, they each agreed that this analysis did reflect the majority of what was happening and that it most probably was the root cause of the major complaint points. Several behavioral change suggestions were made for each individually and both together.  This is still an ongoing project with regular check-ins.

However, I am thoroughly convinced that with everything else the same, and the follower styles being the only identifiable difference with very clearly defined behaviors, as is the case with these two managers, that follower style is just as critical as leadership "style." I am also convinced that organizations should begin learning and understanding followership and the indicators and behaviors of specific follower styles and the impact that those different follower styles can have on the leader-follower relationship.

In the leadership process, leaders and followers co-create their relationships like the two inseparable sides of a coin. The strength of the relationship is not determined by one side alone but by how both engage, communicate, and respond to one another. Just as a coin has value only with both sides intact, leadership relationships thrive when leaders and followers share responsibility for building trust, clarity, and collaboration.