91% of staff adore their boss

Imagine when conducting a leadership survey in your organisation you find 91% of your staff adore their leader. That’s one of the remarkable findings from my investigation of Maasai society in Kenya. When I asked Maasai and Samburu whether their chief is a good leader, 91% were moved to tears just thinking about this wonderful person in their life.

That remarkable finding set me off on researching First Nation societies more broadly, especially to find what leadership patterns exist across societies that have been around for so long – long enough to determine what works and what doesn’t. My findings are covered in First Leaders.

One of the patterns of leadership selection in First Nations, especially those societies organised at the clan and nation level, is that a person is only chosen as chief if they have the enthusiastic support of their followers. A Maasai elder told me, ‘The leader is chosen by the warriors — by the followers. The role of the elders is mainly to advise the warriors in their selection of leader.’

A current Maasai warrior told me about how a selected small group of warriors – the cabinet – is involved in the selection of the person who will be appointed as their chief. ‘The cabinet plays a key role in choosing the chief,’ he told me. ‘The cabinet and the elders identify the likely chiefs. The cabinet confers with the warriors to see who the warriors want as their chief.’

Across the other side of the world, Mohawk society have a similar approach. In their case, the clan mother and the senior women represent the community of followers. The clan mother tracks possible chief candidates for years before succession occurs. The final step in selecting a chief is a meeting of the candidate with the senior women of the clan. Men can also be present at this meeting, but only as observers. If the women agree with the clan mother’s choice, they appoint the chief. The chief is responsible to the women and by extension, to the community.

In workplaces, why not listen to the voice of the followers who will be reporting to the leader? The ability and wisdom to select a leader doesn’t reside exclusively with the boss of the new leader. Direct reports are heavily invested in making a good appointment. Involving direct reports has three benefits. First, the direct reports have a valuable perspective that helps the person above the role make an informed selection decision (and with internal candidates, the direct reports will have a perspective likely to be more realistic than that of higher-level executives). Second, involving direct reports gives a strong signal to the candidate that maintaining the support of their followers is an expectation of a leader. And third, it gives the new leader a confident start knowing that their team endorsed their selection.

In one of my HR Director roles, I worked with a CEO who asked people’s input before appointing senior leaders. Prior to deciding a leadership appointment the CEO talked with the direct reports, asking their opinion about the person he was thinking of appointing. The CEO knew that he did not have complete nor exclusive information on the candidates. The direct reports had both a valuable perspective and also a great deal invested in the person being appointed.

In First Nation societies, followership is more significant than the role we allow it to play in workplaces. Involvement of direct reports in leadership selection is practical and respectful and has been proven over the long timeframe of the human journey. ???