Martin Hunter/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Chris Robshaw – and why being a good follower is every bit as important as being a good leader

It’s a convenient refuge for coaches and bosses across sport and business, but “they’re all leaders” is analogous with adding “executive” to everyone’s job title.

Chris Robshaw, sacked as the England rugby captain but retained as a player, has helped England to win the Six Nations. Against Wales last week, Robshaw’s sustained supportiveness allowed others to take the limelight. Unflashy but quietly influential, it was Robshaw’s career in miniature. It was also a superb example of an underrated quality (especially impressive coming from a recently deposed captain): followership.

Robshaw’s World Cup experience was especially bruising, with his decisions questioned and the team’s strategy eviscerated. Instead of sulking, his response, back in the ranks, has been to keep quiet and get stuck in – quite literally. By mopping up his own side’s messy play and closing down the opposition’s opportunities, he enhances his team-mates and diminishes those they are up against. Number 6s are usually brave, but Robshaw’s bravery has been psychological as well as physical.

There is a surfeit of leadership and a lack of followership; too many people who want to lead, too few who seek influence as followers. This is partly a problem of mathematics: there is only one captain and 14 others. What about the vogueish idea of “leaders throughout the team?” This a classic dodge, defining an uncomfortable word so broadly that it ceases to mean anything. If everyone is a leader, all that’s been achieved is the need to coin a new word for the real leader. It’s a convenient refuge for coaches and bosses across sport and business, but “they’re all leaders” is analogous with adding “executive” to everyone’s job title.

Printing more leadership is a lot easier than the tough alternative challenge: resuscitating followership. Language shows the fate of the two words. “Follower” is layered with negative assumptions – a spineless flip-flopper who lacks direction. A “follower”, as the word is usually used, is never following somewhere admirable; he is always being led astray.

The word “leader”, in contrast, benefits from the triumph of vagueness. Few people try to define leadership, but we are all in favour of it. If only there were more leaders and better leadership, then the world’s problems would be fixed. Joseph Rost, a professor of leadership studies at the University of San Diego, examined the development of the term since 1900. “Leadership”, he concluded regretfully but accurately, is a “word that has come to mean all things to all people”.

The paradox is obvious: as everyone climbs on board the leadership bandwagon, it becomes ever harder to lead, because there are too few followers to give leadership the push it relies on. Management gurus, business books, Ted talks, social scientists, media commentators, off-site meetings, team-building exercises: the focus is always on growing and expanding leadership. What about the role of those being led?

The only definition of leadership, surely, is someone who has a positive influence on the led. So receptivity is intrinsic to the process. The signals are wasted if there is no one capable of receiving them (just ask a teacher about the impossible class). Without followership, leadership is doomed to become a one-way conversation: everyone is talking, no one is listening.

Leadership, usually wrongly defined as a skill, is actually an effect. In focusing on inputs rather than outputs, we miss the real story. We ask what the leader did or said, then look for the “consequences”. That isn’t how it works. The leadership effect is more like a compound, with two elements – the leader and the led – interacting to create something quite new. Leadership cannot be applied to an inert substance. We over-analyse the sprinkling of one element and ignore entirely the element that it touches and transforms.

I remember a brilliant cricket coach – whose leadership rested on honing followership – making this point in an unguarded conversation with several of his players, who were cataloguing the dressing-room unhappiness at rival clubs. “The coach there has got no man-management skills. Same problem up the road.” That was the gist, applied to every club. Our coach listened patiently and nodded for a good while before saying, “And what is the quality of the players’ followership? How good are they at being led? Are they open to the idea, eager to respond to leadership?” He said it lightly, but we felt the sting.

None of this is meant to devalue the role played by the leader. When Eddie Jones was appointed, this column drew attention to the signal strength of England’s new coach: he is quick-witted and surprising.

Wit – and I don’t mean just jokes – is often the catalyst for the leadership effect. It is amazing what people will put up with (hard work, pain, the subjugation of personal glory, minor humiliations) if we are given a good story to tell and something to laugh about. The trusty cliché “constructive criticism” is often translated as criticism suffocated with cuddly good intentions. Quite the reverse. Constructive criticism is something you can act on. I’ve seen great coaches offer unblinking criticisms (succinct, witty, brisk) that are lapped up by players.

But the centrality of followership still holds. Jones was lucky that he took over from someone who was neither witty nor surprising. So circumstance was Jones’s ally: just by being himself, he was likely to find a receptive audience – followers.

Before the Six Nations, the media circus focused on Jones’s controversial choice of captain – Dylan Hartley, who possesses a troubled disciplinary record. The furore obscured another central decision: retaining and re-energising Robshaw. Jones describes Robshaw as the team’s “glue”; the bassist in the rock band who allows the lead guitarist and vocalist to dazzle in the spotlight. It’s time to restore the status of the follower. 

Ed Smith is a journalist and author, most recently of Luck. He is a former professional cricketer and played for both Middlesex and England.

This article first appeared in the 17 March 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Spring double issue

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.