Physician Coaching Articles of Interest
April 2021
The articles this month take a slightly different direction this month, calling on reviews from major business journals to explore some the concepts of followership and leadership credibility. While these articles are not specific to physician coaching, the observations they make will resonate with physicians on leadership journeys and the coaches who support them.
What every leader needs to know about followers.
- Authors: Barbara Kellerman
Reference: Harvard Business Review, December 2007, pp84 - 91
Summary: While this article which was condensed from a book by the same author now counts as teenaged, it is worth revisiting. Kellerman frames a concept about followership that aligns around the status of followers on a single metric, how engage they are with the leader. The advantage of this approach is that it fits well in the physician world where while leadership exist, often those led are not truly subordinates. This lack of hierarchy sometimes makes other traditional models of followership more awkward to apply to physicians.
Kellerman proposes 5 types of follower; isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. Isolates do not know anything about their leaders, nor do they care to; they are completely detached. Bystanders have no engagement with their leaders, but unlike isolates, they know what is going on; they choose not to connect. Participants have some investment in what is going on, but are pursuing their own interests and problems can arise when they are not aligned with the leader or the organization; there is always a risk they will head off in their own direction without thought to the impact on the leader or organization. Activists feel very strongly about the leadership they are experiencing and are very ready act on those feelings, positive or negative; they may work hard to support a leader, but they may work just as hard to undermine them. Diehards will risk all to support their causes, which like activists, could be for against a leader.
The task placed on the leader in this followership structure is to have deep understanding and effective practices to create positive engagement with followers.
Kellerman proposes 5 types of follower; isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. Isolates do not know anything about their leaders, nor do they care to; they are completely detached. Bystanders have no engagement with their leaders, but unlike isolates, they know what is going on; they choose not to connect. Participants have some investment in what is going on, but are pursuing their own interests and problems can arise when they are not aligned with the leader or the organization; there is always a risk they will head off in their own direction without thought to the impact on the leader or organization. Activists feel very strongly about the leadership they are experiencing and are very ready act on those feelings, positive or negative; they may work hard to support a leader, but they may work just as hard to undermine them. Diehards will risk all to support their causes, which like activists, could be for against a leader.
The task placed on the leader in this followership structure is to have deep understanding and effective practices to create positive engagement with followers.
Comment: Kellerman’s model aligns well with contemporary focus on physician engagement and is a good lens to view some the disengagement events in the recent past. It provides an excellent segway into coaching around engagement and the considerable neuroscience that supports it and offers a potential metric for outcome of engagement focused leadership coaching.
Why People Believe in Their Leaders – or Not
- Authors: Daniel Han Ming Chng, Tae-Yeol Kim, Brad Gilbreath, and Lynne Andersson
Reference: MIT Sloan Management Review, Fall 2018, pp65 - 70
Summary: TThis article reviews results from a number of field studies involving American blue and white collar workers and students. While not specifically targeting physicians, it describes rather unique work that actually ranks behaviours, many of which could be viewed as coachable behaviours, that either enhance or detract from the credibility of leaders. They found that leadership credibility hinged on the perception of the competence and trustworthiness of the leader by those being led. There research identified specific leadership behaviours most likely to enhance and diminish these perceptions. Competence perception was enhanced by being seen as future oriented, emphasize outcomes, emphasize followers and their contributions, are seen to act and take initiative, communicate clearly, and are seen to gain new knowledge and experience. Competence perception is diminished by failure to demonstrate relevant knowledge and expertise, failure to act, taking ego driven actions, failure to appreciate followers, creating confusion, poor communication and closemindedness. Trustworthiness perception is enhanced by being seen to act consistently, to protect followers and the organization, act consistent with stated values, to listen to stakeholders, communicates openly and values and supports followers. Trustworthiness perception is diminished by contributing to an unethical climate, communicating dishonestly, being self serving, acting inconsistently, communicating guardedly, ignoring input and treating followers as expendable. The authors reference other work that suggests that people tend put more emphasis on positive information with respect to competence, but negative information with respect to trustworthiness. Their research suggests that leaders who have lost credibility can regain it, but such reversal requires considerable and sustained effort without relapse.
Comment: This information is highly informative for coaches working with clients seeking to connect to a constituency. The article itself has significant value as something upon which clients might reflect and use to create specific leadership coaching goals.
Comment: This information is highly informative for coaches working with clients seeking to connect to a constituency. The article itself has significant value as something upon which clients might reflect and use to create specific leadership coaching goals.
