Presenting at the 2026 Global Followership Conference prompted me to think beyond current theories and ask a question that has stayed with me since returning home:
Why has leadership been studied for centuries, while followership has only recently begun to receive serious academic attention?
The conference explored followership as an essential component of leadership and organizational effectiveness. Yet, as I reflected on the discussions, I realized that many societies have long practiced sophisticated forms of followership without ever identifying it as an independent field of study.
Growing up in China, I often heard stories about traditional extended households during the late imperial period and earlier dynasties. Wealthy families frequently employed numerous household staff, including housekeepers, stewards, cooks, gardeners, farm workers, attendants, and domestic servants. Depending on the family’s wealth and social standing, a household might employ anywhere from several servants to dozens.
Within these households existed a highly organized social and managerial system.
At the top stood the head of the family, who held ultimate authority over the household. Beneath the family leadership was the house manager or chief steward, who was entrusted with overseeing daily operations, supervising personnel, allocating responsibilities, maintaining discipline, and ensuring the smooth functioning of the estate. Under the steward were team leaders responsible for different areas of work, followed by experienced servants who mentored newcomers. New employees gradually learned their responsibilities under the guidance of more experienced followers.
What strikes me today is that this hierarchy was not built upon the expectation that everyone should eventually become the head of the household.
Members of the household staff generally understood that they belonged to a distinct organizational structure. Career advancement occurred within that structure rather than beyond it. A diligent worker might become a senior servant. A respected senior servant might become a team leader. An exceptional team leader might eventually earn the trust required to become the house manager. The highest achievement within the service hierarchy was to become the trusted steward of the household, not to replace the family itself.
This historical example reveals something that modern leadership research often overlooks.
Leadership existed within followership.
The house manager simultaneously occupied two roles. The steward was a follower of the household master while also serving as the leader of the household staff. Likewise, team leaders followed the steward while leading newer workers. Leadership and followership were therefore not mutually exclusive identities but interconnected roles that depended on organizational position and relationships.
Modern organizations continue to operate in much the same way. A chief executive officer leads the organization while reporting to a board of directors. Vice presidents follow the CEO while leading divisions. Directors follow vice presidents while leading managers. Managers follow senior leaders while supervising employees. Almost everyone in an organization is simultaneously a leader in one relationship and a follower in another.
Yet contemporary society increasingly promotes leadership as the primary measure of success. Educational systems encourage students to become leaders. Organizations develop leadership pipelines. Professional development programs emphasize leadership competencies. Rarely do we encourage individuals to become exceptional followers, even though every organization depends on effective followership for its success.
Historically, however, followership was not viewed as a temporary stage before leadership. In many traditional organizational systems, it represented a respected professional identity with its own standards of excellence. Trustworthiness, competence, reliability, judgment, loyalty, discretion, and stewardship were qualities that earned advancement within the followership hierarchy. Success was measured not by acquiring ownership or ultimate authority but by becoming someone upon whom leaders could confidently rely.
Perhaps this historical reality helps explain why followership was seldom taught as an independent discipline. For centuries, followership was embedded within everyday social structures. People learned how to follow through apprenticeships, family traditions, occupational customs, and hierarchical organizations. There was little perceived need to conceptualize followership separately because it was assumed to be part of the natural social order.
The modern era transformed this assumption. Industrialization, democratization, globalization, and expanded educational opportunities encouraged societies to celebrate individual achievement, upward mobility, and leadership aspiration. Leadership became associated with innovation, influence, and personal success. Followership, by contrast, gradually became associated with dependence or lower status, despite remaining essential to organizational effectiveness.
Ironically, organizations themselves never stopped relying on followers.
Every leader depends upon capable followers. Every successful organization depends upon individuals who exercise sound judgment, demonstrate commitment, contribute expertise, challenge constructively when necessary, and collaborate toward shared goals. The language of leadership became increasingly prominent, but the practice of effective followership remained indispensable.
This historical perspective also suggests an opportunity for future followership research. Rather than asking only how leaders create better followers, scholars might also ask how organizations cultivate followership as a respected, developmental, and enduring role. Traditional Chinese household systems illustrate that followership can possess its own hierarchy, developmental pathways, mentoring structures, and standards of excellence. These historical models remind us that effective organizations have long depended on capable followers whose contributions extended far beyond simple obedience.
Perhaps the future of leadership studies lies not in elevating leadership above followership, but in understanding their mutual dependence.
Leadership and followership are not opposing concepts. They are complementary social roles that continuously shape one another. By examining historical organizational systems through the lens of followership, we may discover that what appears to be a new field of inquiry is, in fact, an ancient human practice that has only recently acquired a name.