Wiki contents


2019 Learning journals
2018 Learning journals
2015 Learning journals
2014 Learning journals
2013 Learning journals

Smartsims Support Centre

Blog updates

Recently Updated

Recent updates

Recently Updated

All updates

Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Out of the readings for Week 3 only the one by Kelly seemed to stimulate the reflective process. As it got me thinking about my previous experiences in teams and whether I am a leader or a follower. Personally, I believe some are more naturally equipped to be leaders in the traditional sense, however I also believe you are not just a leader or a follower. I have always considered myself to be a lone wolf, neither a leader nor a follower in which I would adjust appropriately upon finding myself in situations where one or both are necessary. Never being a ‘leader’ in my own opinion I must be a follower by default.  Kelley (1988) suggested that there are five different followership patterns stating that there are people ranging from passive followers to effective followers. Effective followers being people who do not require strong leadership, being able to manage themselves which got me thinking, does that mean a team consisting of effective followers can be just as successful as the same group of followers with an adequate leader? Would the leader feel somewhat useless or underutilised in that role where their strong leadership qualities aren’t being capitalised on?

I think that I am a committed honest person capable of managing themselves well, however I do not believe that makes me an effective follower. Looking back at all the teams I have been a part of, I do not think I am necessarily a follower, even though sometimes I display all the characteristics of a follower. I never told people what to do, nor was I the one to make inspirational speeches to ‘rally the troops’, in the many football teams I played football for I didn’t put my hand up to take the captain’s armband. But I did lead in my opinion, I showed up and did my job. I was committed to the team and gave my all. I was able to competently fulfil any role I was given. I believe that I lead from example by being an effective follower and I think that being able to transition between the roles comfortably, whenever it is required, is necessary in my idea of a team.




Kelley, R. E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review66(6), 142-148.


  1. I really like the way you present your thought process in answering your question - you take multiple possibilities into account, and give specific examples to test your theorised answer.

    I think you could have delved a little into the "action" part of the reflective process that Daudelin suggests. For instance, going beyond concluding that you believe you lead from example, and outlining a change of mind/behaviour that the reading may have triggered. Remember that reflection is (as per Daudelin's definition, at least) only complete when there is some new behaviour. Or, if this hasn't happened yet, you could speculate on what could possible arise. But you did follow the first few steps of Daudelin's structure well.

    Hope this is helpful (smile)

  2. I really liked the Kelley reading too! I thought you reflected really well on your previous experiences in teams, deciphering whether you were a leader or a follower. I find that the way you think, I think too, about being neither a leader nor a follower but slipping into either role if necessary. I also thought you had a cool idea talking about having a team of followers but still being successful. And I liked reading about your link to football. Team sports are in many ways similar to project teams, where people are often put together based on level of ability. I think for your next journal, (even though you found the other two boring!) you probably could compare the other two readings because I have found so far, they are all quite different perspectives (sometimes polar opposites) so you could write which perspective you like more, and then you have sound material to back it up. Another interesting way could be to look at the dates and where the article was published to explain why maybe one perspective is out of date or less relevant. Just an idea though! Great journal though, easy to read and relate (smile)