In rigidly hierarchical systems, i.e. military organizations, to be a follower is mandated. At the same time, their structure and reward systems are based on promotions with the intent of moving qualified, experienced individuals into positions of leadership so that they can help others to learn. That might be clear from the leader's perspective. Not so much from the private who is out picking up cigarette butts and other litter that he/she did not discard. There are many such structures and it may be their influence that is promoting the challenges to followership.

It is as you indicated in your article, all about words. We seem to have put a negative connotation on the words, follow, following, and followers. And  yet, as Peter pointed out, it is really more about influence. We are either the one influencing or the one being influenced. And as Peter pointed out being blindly influenced or worse yet, manipulated (and I am purposefully using the most negative connotation here) is not the same thing as being influenced in a cooperative, productive, and positive way.

It is my experience and my belief that well balanced organizations and teams allow for a sharing of leadership. Depending on the needs of the moment any one member may be in possession of knowledge or skills that would allow them to be the primary source of influence. Yes, there may be one member who has the positional power to approve the ultimate course of action, but everyone has the capacity if allowed, to contribute and therefore influence the thinking of others. In such environments we are all leaders and we are all followers depending on the circumstances of the moment.

Very interesting, thought-provoking article, Mike. Keep them coming.