Followership and servant leadership are the key styles that are commonly used in the military industry, and they base a strong control on people to ensure honesty and devotion. Both aspects promote respect, a positive attitude to surrounding people, and self-discipline. However, some requirements can differ in these two types of leadership, and it is important to understand the difference that might influence the regulation process. Consequently, this paper will reveal the key features that a similar in followership and servant leadership and what unique parts make them different. This information will help to make a clear contrast and comparison analysis.
Followership allows to have a close relationship with the leaders of the team and build direct communication avoiding intermediates. The concept is a part of the leadership triad, which includes management and leadership aspects important in the business regulation. In the followership, managers can create strategies that allow workers to see them as role models who are always ready to provide the needed support or motivate to increase performance (Bastardoz and Vugt, 2019). The development of teamwork is based on followership as it allows workers to communicate more, build professional teamwork and generate positive outcomes.
Servant leadership allows different parties to communicate directly, but the main goal of employees is to receive authority, and powers are not an interesting aspect for them. Individuals in this leadership type interact closely, and even workers and customers might have informal communication to achieve the desired outcome (Pawar et al., 2020). This technique helps introduce more customers and inspires workers to work on creative tasks closely with the client. When companies follow this type of leadership, every worker can become a leader in a specific task depending on their skills. When people can try themselves in different controlling positions, they might stay more integrated into the organization’s general performance.
Comparing followership and servant leadership is significant, and some managers and leaders might not understand the difference. For instance, if followership, the communication aspect is not strictly regulated, and workers can communicate freely with their colleagues who have a higher status (Bastardoz and Vugt, 2019). Pawar et al. (2020) also state that the servant leadership style does not underestimate the importance of communication and encourages workers to increase their level of motivation through communication.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of both types of leadership might slow down because of a lack of knowledge of the key differences. Leaders should observe their target audience and the style of the business to understand if their type of organization can be regulated by followership of servant leadership. Followership does not support informal communication with both customers and colleagues. Even though companies with this technique promote active communication, it is important to follow ethical rules and not switch topics to personal talks. However, servant leadership contrasts with followership as workers and clients can make conversations more interactive by using small informal talks. For instance, on the one hand, the banking sphere should avoid servant leadership as clients might lose their trust. On the other hand, art shops can use this technique as creative people can stay more inspired through pleasant communication.
In conclusion, followership and servant leadership might seem the same at the first sight and some organizational leaders rarely mention significant differences that might harm their performance. However, even thought both types propose an active communication, it is important to understand the types of businesses that should follow followership rather than servant leadership and visa versa.
References
Bastardoz, N., & Vugt, M. V. (2019). The nature of followership: Evolutionary analysis and review. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 81-95.
Pawar, A., Sudan, K., & Satini, S. (2020). Organizational servant leadership. A Systematic Literature review for Implications in Business, 1(2).