The shift began when Ray McLean, a leadership expert, reached out to St Kilda in 1994. Through discussions with Stan Alves, then coach of the Saints, McLean introduced the idea of a “leadership group”: if one leader is good for success, more must be better. Alves embraced the concept enthusiastically, and St Kilda introduced their first leadership group of six. The question became: How could St Kilda lose? (They placed 13th that year, and 14th the following year).
Loading
Two decades later, the Swans outdid them with a nine-person leadership group, with one in every two players in 2014 acting as leaders. But eventually, the concept reached its inevitable conclusion. In 2020, Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley explained that the club had developed “a really deep and diverse leadership” not just among senior and emerging leaders, but across the entire playing group and football program. Everyone at Collingwood was a leader, so how could they possibly lose? (They finished eighth that year.)
It’s hard not to see this mindset mirrored in the job market. Executive recruiters seem to imagine the ideal organisation to be no followers, just leaders, until there are no more leaders left to lead.
Now, I’m left with a dilemma. When applying for positions, and the requirement reads “leadership abilities”, how am I supposed to respond? With a straight face and without launching into a lecture on the cult of leadership? Do I list the people who’ve followed me? Offer a headcount? Invent a group and assign myself a mentor? Or do I just play along, tick the box, and hope no one asks too many questions?
Because in a world where everyone’s a leader and leadership is the universal answer to every problem, it seems the only thing you can’t afford to be is someone quietly getting the job done. God forbid you’re an excellent follower.
And yet, the world needs followers. As Mintzberg noted, the only way to define a leader is in terms of followers. Without them, what exactly are we leading?
John Coles is a finance professional.