While in Hollywood during the 30s, P. G. Wodehouse saw a lot of "Yes men". He wrote a short story about this phenomenon entitled The Nodder*. In the story, decades before Robert Kelley set forth his Follower grid, Mr. Wodehouse established a hierarchy of toadyism. Sunny Hollywood, of course, was (is?) a natural breeding ground, equal to Wall Street, for the worst kind of followers what with its megalomaniacal studio bosses, a sycophantic press, the star system, and - being the only show in town during the Depression - a generous stream of cash to cover vanity payrolls, including a colony of Brits: writers, actors and penniless members of the peerage. The colony had its own cricket team.
One of those colony writers (and cricketer) was P. G. Wodehouse. It is said he endured being paid thousands for doing next to nothing (not his choice) for three years, and then his contract was not renewed. Shortly after (more likely during his three years of being under used) he wrote several stories, including at least one novel that exposed child labor in the film industry. Not at all like the muckraker Sinclair Lewis, all of Wodehouse's writing was in good humor and with his usual celebration of the absurd.
The Nodder in the story is a young man who seeks the hand of a bird imitator – yes, back in the day there were vaudeville performers paid to warble. He encounters difficulty in his suit until the Cecil B. DeMille-type studio boss fires the bird imitator when she speaks truth to Cecil's power: the cuckoo exclaims with a Wuckoo!, not a Cuckoo!. Now, the Nodder has his chance to demonstrate to his true love that he is a Real Man – or not, by telling off Cecil. Will he? Will the worm turn?
When teaching about leaders and followers, I combine the assigned reading for Kelley with Wodehouse's Nodder short story. Some students never quite get the connection. Others immediately see the link and probably learn more from it about the iniquitous side of following than from reading Kelley with his elaboration of sheep, yes men, alienated followers and survivors.
This November I dust off my "Attitudes" workshop for a full day session in Atlanta. Whenever I do this workshop, I wonder if the people that are participating have been "sent" - sent in like their boss has told them in a most discreet way, of course, they need to turn around their BAD 'tude. Of course, anyone "sent" knows the score. The thought of all those grim faces gives me pause, sort of like a Christian about to be served up as an appetizer to the lions at the Coliseum.
molars. I rested against my unreasonably thin safety rope and wondered. How was I going to get to the top? Less rational was the incessant trembling in my legs.
My first shaky try failed and I scraped against the granite, cursing, scrambling back to the few inches of the ledge. I counted my bruises and composed myself. I heard the encouraging shouts of my teammates below.
I thought about what it would take to make this leap, a leap of faith for me and my coach.
What role does the team play?
What moves the person to leap?
LfM: A "good addition to the management shelf...".
The September 2010 issue of American Libraries, p. 50, briefly reviews Leading from the Middle in the Librarian's Library segment by Mary Ellen Quinn. The book's cover gets a pic all of its own,(nice design, what ho!) and Ms. Quinn recommends the book as a "good addition to the management shelf...".
What do you decide to do about these not uncommon team situations? What might be driving the team member's behavior? Do you call the behavior or ignore it? Tell me why.
1.	Hal waxes eloquent with little prompting. Actually, sometimes without any prompting. He's infatuated with the sound of his voice. When a simple yes or no would suffice, Hal goes on for two or three minutes or more. You're the team leader and you've been keeping track of Hal's "airtime" in team meetings. He's at about 50%, and gaining. While there's usually some value in his comments, his verbosity is shutting down other viewpoints, especially from quieter team members whom he leaves, literally, speechless.
2.	Sally and Ralph sit side by side in your team's weekly meeting. They often whisper during team discussions. You have no idea if what they are murmuring about is related to the topic under discussion. Every now and then, when the general team discussion gets a bit unfocused, they'll get into an out loud side-conversation totally irrelevant to the topic being discussed. You get a sense their behavior is annoying to the other team members, but so far no one has confronted them, including, you, the team leader. Do you?
3.	Lucy is a know it all. She ignores other team members' viewpoints, giving the impression that her view is better informed than anyone else's. Lucy can quote chapter and verse on most policies and procedures. However, her arguments, invariably, are to maintain the status quo rather than to improve and make changes. In the process she silences other team members who do not have the familiarity she has with the topic and are fearful of being shown up. Yet, you know these silenced team members have very good ideas. Confront?
4.	Jack really, really, would like to be back in his cubicle cataloging books rather than in the weekly team meeting. His disdain for team work is on view as he squirms in his seat, checks his watch, and rolls his eyes when discussion goes on and on. He tries to hurry the process along so he can get back to his "real work", as he calls it. He is a highly productive worker, is very courteous outside of team meetings, and has a fine sense of humor. He simply detests team projects. What's up?
5.	In team discussions, Jamie is supportive of other views, builds on ideas, listens keenly, asks constructive questions and provides excellent feedback. Her failing? Whenever she volunteers to do extra work for the team, which she does often, she rarely completes it on time, if ever. When confronted about her procrastination, Jamie rattles off lots of reasons why her work is delayed. Keep on keepin' on?
6.	Sofia's a hard working team member in this public services unit. But she has a knack for turning team discussion into a negative energy drain. A cheerleader for her own team, she has nothing good to say about the other teams in the organization: to her they are all incompetent. Sofia has derisive names for the members of other teams, including "deadwood", "shiftless," "asleep at the switch", etc. Since you must collaborate with these groups, Sofia's disdain is a major stumbling block. Well, WHAT are you going to do about Sofia?