Informal Leadership and Followership

Informal leadership can be a good example of shared leadership. An article by Crage L. Pearce and Jay A. Conger describes it as one in which ‘individuals who are not formally appointed as leaders can rise to the occasion to exhibit leadership and then step back at other times to allow others to lead’ (Craig L. Rearce, 2010). Followership on the other hand, is about the people who get led formally or informally. Over time, this has evolved though, it is more about engaging as Robert E. Kelley (see Gill R. Hickman, 2010 pp.181) describes it, followership is being actively involved in facilitating attainment of an organizations goal without necessarily losing one’s independence or ability to criticize the same organization’s work and work methods.

In distinguishing and illustrating the relation between the two concepts above (informal leadership and followership), a practical example on the operations of a loose coalition of women that campaigned for peace in Uganda is here below used. Uganda Women’s Coalition for Peace (UWCP) was a loose network of women from the grass root, diaspora, and women in positions of leadership; formed and remained active during the 2006 – 2008 peace process between Government of the Republic of Uganda (GoU) and the Lord’s Resistant Army/Movement (LRA/M), mediated by the Government of South Sudan (GOSS) and facilitated by a UN Special Representative of Secretary General (UNSRSG) His Excellency President Chissano of Mozambique.

The LRA, a vicious rebel group, had waged wars and committed atrocities in northern part of Uganda for 20 years. At the beginning of the peace process, women felt let out (not involved) in spite of the fact that they had born the biggest brunt of the 20 years old conflict (lost their husbands, children, were raped, abducted, maimed and killed). During the national consultations on the peace process, women as a group were not consulted and therefore felt that the outcome documents (agreements) would be gender neutral or gender blind, meaning it would not include there issues such as sexual violence and bodily integrity of women, witness protection issues (for women who would have been raped by big commanders for instance), compensation for victims of rape and defilement and many others.

As followers (of the men at the negotiation table I suppose) women across Uganda mobilized themselves, consulted widely, demanded and met with the Presidents involved – Dr. Riek Macher (GOSS), John Chissano (Mozambique), and Mr. Museveni of Uganda. Among their demands were: - being present at the negotiating table from both the LRA and the GoU side; being granted observer status at the talks; and above all their issues included in the outcome documents. All their demands were granted. They drafted, informally, agreements on accountability, compensation, reconciliation, and justice and cease fire. These were all passed informally to the men (leaders) in the negotiation room through women (who by this time were inserted into the process). This was followed by intense lobbying. When the agreements were finalized, they were one of the most gender responsive agreements of any peace process of our time today. It was unfortunate that the outcome documents of the piece process remained un signed up to today.

In the above case, women were initially (at the beginning of the peace process) followers while the men led the process (leaders). The followership roles however changed when women mobilized themselves and took charge and ensured that their issues were well inserted into outcome documents of the process. They had become informal leaders. Leaders (the men at the table) in this case were associated with power, importantness (who is who – all were presidents, vice presidents, commanders or UN envoy), guns, and probably with big egos as well. The similarities in the two roles women played (followership and informal leadership) were that women had no appointment letters, titles or guns. They remained just a team comprising of women from all walks of life that had to self manage for a common cause - “Peace at all cost”. The one difference, in the two roles women played had to do with influence in decision making. As informal leaders and on behalf of the women of Uganda (because of cause not all could go to the peace process), they were able to influence decision makers at the table. As followers, they were a bunch of vulnerable, aggrieved victims.

Informal leadership therefore empowers followership. As strategies, both can actually be useful in achieving a particular goal. Their (followership and leadership) success in delivering a goal appears to be dependent on the good will of the formal leaders (men at the table in this case).

  

Bibliography

Craig L. Rearce, J. A. (2010). All those Years Ago. The Historical Underpinnings of Shared Leadership. In G. R. ed., Leading Organisations Perspectives for a New Era (pp. 167 - 180). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Gill R. Hickman (2010). Leading Orgnisations. Perspective for a New Era.Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.