What happens when leadership follows instead of leads?

Humility is good. Leaders who lack humility might be viewed as productive but rarely relatable. Leading from an attitude of humility can be healthy. There is an aspect of following in terms of seeking solid counsel, being willing to admit weaknesses with an intention to listen to and partner with others who know their fields. Humility can be solid leadership when it unites people and ideas to strategize next steps as a team as well as every individual involved.

That’s not the type of following leadership that is unhealthy. I’m referring to a lack of or poor decision making. A leader who follows more than leads is more reactive than proactive. They create more confusion than clarity. They exacerbate more problems than solve them. They might appear to be humble by the questions they ask and the information they gather, but it’s not humble when it’s not intentional or when it’s self-serving. That leadership is seeking unhealthy co-dependency, and it will erode the culture of the organization.

We’ve all seen it happen. Talented people are placed in the wrong positions at the wrong time. Other leaders fail to address issues because they think it’s too much effort or will cause too many problems, but their delay refuses to acknowledge an under-the-surface erosion is potentially much more damaging than a few uncomfortable conversations.

Leadership should be collaborative not co-dependent. It should be constructive not destructive. What influence do you have with others, and how can you improve?