Generally, high performance requires an appropriate leadership style that values the interest of followers. For instance, in the military, the leaders must have an unselfish mindset to enable them to encourage the aspect of diversity within the camp. Following the demanding nature of military operations, soldiers should be able to work in harmony to support the goals of the intended mission. Therefore, it is important for leaders to comprehend the facets of followership and servant leadership to integrate the teams effectively into the organization.
The term ‘followership’ refers to the ability of the followers to be active team members, take required direction, and show their commitment towards the management. In other words, the juniors are capable of executing the assigned responsibilities as stated by the leader. On the other hand, servant leadership is a headship style that describes the interaction between the supervisor and the subordinates. The approach allows the frontrunner to address the needs of staff to enhance their commitment towards achieving the set objectives.
Servant leadership and followership have some key aspects in common. For instance, in the approaches, the followers and servant leaders value commitment. The soldiers in the military are dedicated to serving and executing the commands given by their supervisors (Barry et al., 2021). Similarly, the supervisors are devoted to ensuring the officers obtain what they need to keep them active throughout their missions. Furthermore, there is an element of loyalty whereby the armed forces are dependable and willing to perform any activity that meets their objective set by the commander. In addition, in both cases, there is mutual respect and trust between the leaders and their juniors. For instance, when supervisors are giving orders and guidance, the officers are confident and ready to follow their directives given. Similarly, the Generals always believe in the capabilities of the soldiers and accord the necessary respect. Moreover, followership and servant leadership portrays the tendency of wiliness to take action. In the military, leaders and juniors are ever ready to undertake any mission despite their situation. They are driven by the need to serve the people and achieve their goals.
Despite having similar attributes, followership and servant leadership still differ significantly from each other. For instance, the responsibilities of leaders are more unlike the ones of followers. The Generals in the military must ensure the operations are successful by coordinating and inspiring the junior officers to concentrate and deliver the required services (Lee et al., 2020). The subordinate has less commitment since they are not much concerned and do not need much awareness and conceptualization of the whole operation processes in the camp. Furthermore, servant leaders are known for giving orders and performing other necessary operations to enable the subordinates to comply effectively. On the other hand, followership embraces the culture of following instructions and strictly executing the commands from the commander.
In the military, followership and servant leadership are crucial approaches for ensuring effective performance to achieve objectives. Soldiers portray a high level of loyalty by following the orders given by their leaders without questioning the commanders’ actions. Similarly, the supervisors trust the activities of the officers and assigned them duties knowing that they will deliver. However, on the basis of responsibilities, servant leaders have several tasks to perform that demand more attention from them as compared to the junior officers.
References
Barry, E. S., Bader-Larsen, K. S., Meyer, H. S., Durning, S. J., & Varpio, L. (2021). Leadership and Followership in military interprofessional health care teams.Military Medicine, 186(Supplement_3), 7-15.
Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A. W., & Knight, C. (2020). Servant leadership: A meta‐analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 1-44.