The real issue isn't which one to pick — it's that we frame leading and following as opposites in the first place.
The Leadership Problem
Getting promoted into power says nothing about whether someone can actually lead well. Traits that help people get leadership roles — like narcissism — often don't help them perform in those roles. The numbers back this up: roughly half of corporate managers fail, trust in leaders keeps falling, and spending more on leadership development hasn't restored confidence in the people running organizations. Disengagement, driven mostly by bad bosses, is rampant, and people famously leave managers, not companies.
The Case for Followers
Followers are the overlooked half of the equation:
- Team performance often tracks the quality of the people doing the work more than the person leading them — in sports, payroll for players predicts outcomes far more than coaching does.
- Elections show leaders are only as good as the voters who choose them; smarter, more engaged followers tend to produce better leaders.
- Accountability depends on followers — toxic or incompetent leaders survive longest when the people around them fail to notice or push back.
Why the Dilemma Feels Real
Socially, everyone claims to admire good followers — but status, pay, and prestige flow to leadership roles, not individual contribution. The standard reward for excelling as an employee is a promotion into management, even when that's a completely different job requiring different skills and interests. This is the Peter Principle in action: people rise until they land in a role they're not suited for, meaning most people's "ceiling" is really one level below wherever they end up stuck.
Whether being a good follower or a bad leader is "better" depends entirely on whose interests you're optimizing for. Good followership benefits the team but can cap your own advancement. Bad leadership can boost your status and income while damaging everyone who reports to you.
A Better Frame
Stop treating leading and following as a hierarchy. The best followers aren't passive or deferential — they're competent enough to spot when a leader is wrong, confident enough to say so, and committed enough to the team's interest to set aside ego. That's essentially the same skill set we claim to want in leaders: judgment, integrity, self-awareness, courage.
The reverse is also true: the ability to be led well predicts leadership potential. People who can't tolerate being managed, who treat disagreement as an attack, or who need to dominate every room don't transform once they're promoted — they just get more room to act out. Power doesn't fix character flaws; it funds them.
The Underlying Fix
The deeper problem isn't that people undervalue good followership — it's that organizations have made leadership the only recognized marker of career success. Until companies build equivalent pay, status, and recognition for outstanding individual contributors, ambitious people will keep chasing management roles regardless of fit, and organizations will keep converting strong followers into mediocre leaders while letting mediocre leaders stay in charge simply because they hold the title.
Value and status aren't the same thing — and most of management's dysfunction traces back to that gap.