Managers and the types of employees they manage

Some leadership researchers have thoroughly studied ancient cultures to determine how leaders lived and ruled in ancient times. Others navigated the turbulent waters of history, in search of lost ideas and ideals of leadership. Still, others have sifted the sands of individual leaders’ lives, seeking biographical shards that might offer clues to this elusive phenomenon. During all these arduous, centuries-long searches for leaders, followers appeared only infrequently. Oddly enough, despite a significant literature on social movements directly concerned with followers’ behavior, linkages to the field of leadership are sparse. Even the social psychological experiments on conformity played a minor role in leadership theory. It took sociologist Max Weber to nudge the exploration of leadership toward a consideration of followers and their perceptions. His discussion of charismatic leadership that “compelled” the awe of followers would lay some early groundwork on which leadership theorists could build. In fact, James MacGregor Burns’s seminal distinction between transactional and transformational leaders did exactly that, highlighting the difference in followers’ behavior with the two kinds of leaders. (Riggio, Chaleff & Blumen 2008)

Larger than life leaders

Yet, a full decade later, Robert E. Kelley’s Harvard Business Review article constituted a sharp rap on the knuckles of the field of leadership for neglecting followers. With some notable exceptions, most subsequent scholars continued to focus on what James Meindl and colleagues labeled the “romance of leadership,” attributing most group and contextual effects— both good and bad— to larger-than-life leaders. Despite the widespread consensus that one must have followers to warrant the label of leader, the spotlight has remained tightly centered on leaders. This distorting and overly positive bias toward leaders predisposed the field to concentrate on what these impressive figures did to followers, not vice versa. Followers were simply noted in passing, those objects on whom leaders foisted their decisions and actions. (Riggio, Chaleff & Blumen 2008)

Even those scholars who escaped the adorational chains of most leadership research emphasized primarily the leaders’—not the followers’—negative qualities and actions. Kelley’s plea notwithstanding, only infrequently did leadership researchers recognize followers as active, thinking, and perceiving individuals. Aside from Burns and later Bass, and an occasional less well-known study, few scholars emphasized the interaction between leaders and followers. Moreover, most failed to explore the inaction of followers in the face of destructive leaders. Even those who considered leadership as a process or relationship treated followers mostly by implication. But the winds of change are gradually rising. Followers, by their actions, are calling attention to themselves— in massive political uprisings in diverse societies, and in incidents of individual whistle-blowing within organizations of all descriptions. Given the increasingly compelling actions of real-life followers vis-à-vis their leaders, perhaps it was inevitable that the leadership spotlight would broaden to include them. Here and there within the field of leadership, scholars and practitioners are starting to acknowledge the significance of followers. Followers with moral courage sometimes in the guise of whistle-blowers, sometimes in less dramatic dress, have entered center stage. A few scholars have begun to raise questions about the impact of bad leaders on their followers and to explore why followers only rarely resist toxic leaders. Gradually, a more follower-centric leadership model – learn more here, inspired by Meindl and his colleagues’ insight, is emerging. (Riggio, Chaleff & Blumen 2008)

Types of employees

There are five basic types of employees for every leader:

The Sheep

The sheep are passive and look to the leader to do the thinking for them and to motivate them. If you are the type of manager whose employees are always just following and relying on you to set the direction, make decisions and set the tone.

The Yes-people

The yes-people are always saying yes to everything. They are positive and constantly agree with managers and management. If they are asked to do something, they will always say yes and once finished, they will go back to the manager asking what next?

The Isolated

The isolated think for themselves but have a lot of negative energy. Every time an idea is presented, the isolated are the ones who have a hundred reasons why it is a bad idea. They see themselves as someone who has the courage to question and confront. They are not willing to come up with a solution but are very pessimistic about the current plan of action. They are smart and are highly critical but refuse to move in a positive direction.

The Sensibles

The sensibles are those that sit on the fence and see which way the wind blows. Once they see which direction it is headed in, they will jump on the popular opinion side. They are never the first on board and they see themselves are preservers of the status quo. They are those who do what they must to survive for a sense of security.

The Stars

The stars have a mind of their own. They do not simply accept a leader’s decision without evaluating its trustworthiness. If they believe it is the right thing to do and the right direction to take, they will give their full support. If they do not agree with the idea or the direction, they question the leader and provide ideas of their own. They themselves are leaders in their own right and they do not blindly follow anyone.