Like many of you, I am on Twitter and find it to be a really helpful source of information.
There is one thing I don’t like about it, however. The people in one’s network are called your Followers. I’ve always felt that Participants would be a better name because your so-called followers who re-tweet the stuff that you post are actually leaders in promoting your ideas. Even without re-tweeting, they are able to incorporate new thinking acquired by following so that they can take the lead in their interactions with others “off-line” and in the normal course of their activities. That makes them participants and sometimes leaders as much as they are followers.
With all of the problems that I could be focusing upon, why am I getting hung up on semantics? Because I think that Twitter perpetuates an idea that is too prevalent in society and tends to divide us into either leaders or followers. In reality, we are both.
It is damaging, however for individuals to think of themselves only as followers. It undermines any tendency to be in touch with that leadership part of their personalities. If you only think of yourself as a follower, it stifles creativity, volunteering to take the lead, and even the tendency to contribute to meaningful discussion before a group decision is made. If you don’t allow yourself to be part of decision-making process that’s led to an unsatisfying decision, all that’s left for you to do is complain. I somehow feel more righteous about complaining if my ideas were rejected – but I’ve had the right to offer them, and I’ve taken the opportunity to do so.
That may be a different way of thinking about leadership. I believe it should be a normal part of the participation process rather than something specialized and separate from the notion that some people are leaders and some are followers.
Are you a leader? Of course you are. We all are. If you are not used to thinking of yourself as a leader, please give it a try. Both you and those who interact with you will benefit.