Good leadership is difficult to define, but a number of scholars have worked hard to do it. For example Kouzes and Posner (2012) have argued that the kind of leader that followers want to follow  is a) honest, 2) forward-looking, 3) competent and 4) inspiring.[1]
That is a good list, but for some time now, I’ve been arguing that there is another missing element. We know that we do not get more out of people by watching them more carefully, or writing more rules,  but from gaining their commitment.  In class, I’ve explained it like this: “If you have my back, you get my heart.”  It is that simple.
I want to know that you won’t throw me under the bus as soon as it somehow proves advantageous for you to do so. If I know that you have my back, I’ll go through the wall for you. Lately, however, I’ve been thinking about this maxim from a different angle.
The Corollary
What if I thought you had my back, but it turns out that you didn’t? What then? It appears that the opposite is also true. “If you don’t have my back, then you get___________________.”
This is what I’m trying to work out.
What do you get exactly?
I suppose it depends on the severity of the transgression. You certainly don’t get my heart. Perhaps you will receive minimal effort in the future because I will stop knocking myself out on your behalf. After all, you have proven that  you’re not safe. You have squandered my commitment. It would be foolish to continue to give you my best, when I know that you will not reciprocate. I suppose that if the transgression was severe enough, it may even merit active resistance.
This is the danger that leaders face when they forget that people are people and not cogs in an organizational machine.
Followers know whether they are valued by their leader’s disposition. Do they ask for our input or do they tell us about their incredible plans? If only they would ask, we would happily tell them. We would protect them from dangers. We would help them see what they cannot see; but alas, few leaders who see people as objects even think to ask.
When they violate the social contract, they are not doing it in a vacuum. They can unilaterally alter the social contract, but so can followers. While followers have less power than the leader, game theory seems to indicate that when it’s their move, they will choose to act differently than they had before. Leaders beware.
In Principle-centered Leadership, Covey (2003) argued that if a follower cannot influence a leader, he will not be influenced by the leader.[2] That is a powerful concept. Leadership is a reciprocal process and when leaders fail to understand it, they increase the odds that they will fail.
References
[1] Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (p. 33)
[2] Covey, S. R. (2003). Â Principled-centered leadership. New York: Free Press.
___________
Dr. Darin Gerdes is a tenured Professor of Management in the College of Business at Charleston Southern University.
All ideas expressed on www.daringerdes.com are his own.
FTC Disclosure: When I refer to a book, I often add a link to Amazon (#ad) so you can purchase it easily. I may earn a few cents if you buy it, but I never recommend any books unless they are worth reading.
___________