I reckon there is a quota for the amount of leaders per team. I think a team full of captains would stall in the strategy phase, never making any progress, spending the whole time arguing.
It’s obvious in the working world because there are clear organisation structures, hierarchies and everyone knows who their boss is. But in the non working world, in the flat hierarchy social teams, it’s subtler. No one is appointed a leader but someone will always fill the position.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a team of twenty can only handle three leaders. And for some reason those three leaders didn’t show up for a week. Well then I think the team would not go quiet but three new leaders would emerge and speak up, if only temporarily, until the old leaders returned.
I think if you’re not a leader, if you’re a follower in this team of twenty, then you see no need to speak up when there are already three clear leaders.
Some people will only emerge as leaders when there is a clear and obvious need for leadership, like the old guard passing on, and not a moment before.
If this does come to pass then a former follower will stand in the team huddle and think ‘Well someone should be talking, I’ll say something’.
To make a claim for leadership whilst the three are still in power would risk confrontation and humiliation.
I think each team needs a certain amount of leaders and a certain amount of followers. A certain amount of decision makers and a certain amount of executors.
I think if you want your followers to speak up more, you need to silence the usual chatterboxes and show the follower their opinion is valued.
Thomas Duggan 