Michael was promoted to manage our development team after the previous manager left unexpectedly. On paper, he was well qualified: senior developer, strong technical skills, and clear ideas about how software should be built. The company gave him authority over project assignments, performance reviews, budget allocation, and team structure. He had the title, the org chart reporting to him, and the executive support.
But something wasn’t working.
When Michael announced new coding standards, people complied dutifully but never embraced them with enthusiasm, when he set project priorities, the team executed them precisely as specified but never suggested improvements or went beyond requirements and when asked for input in meetings, responses were brief and safe. When he needed extra effort to meet tight deadlines, he got exactly what was required and nothing more.
I watched talented developers become passive order-takers. People who had previously collaborated actively on architecture decisions now waited for explicit direction. Engineers who used to stay late debugging complex problems because they cared about the solution now left promptly at 5 PM unless specifically asked to work overtime.
The breaking point came during a critical system upgrade. We hit unexpected integration issues that required creative problem-solving and coordinated effort across multiple components. Michael assigned tasks, set deadlines, and monitored progress closely. But the team operated like a collection of individual contributors rather than a collaborative unit. People solved their assigned pieces but didn’t communicate about dependencies or offer to help with related problems.
Meanwhile
Meanwhile, on the floor below us, I watched Sarah lead a smaller team through an equally complex database migration. She had no formal management title—she was a senior architect—but when technical challenges arose, people naturally brought problems to her. Team members worked late not because she asked them to, but because they were invested in the success of the migration. They shared knowledge freely, helped each other debug issues, and took ownership of collective outcomes.
The contrast was striking. Michael had all the authority but couldn’t get discretionary effort. Sarah had no formal power but had people choosing to follow her technical leadership and collaborative approach.
That experience taught me: you can’t be a leader without having a following. And following is always voluntary, even in hierarchical organizations.