a de r About

Le w

s
ry no

r
t Eve s to K
Wha
e N ee d

Follow
The distinctions among followers There is no leader without at least one follower –
that’s obvious. Yet the modern leadership industry, now a
are every bit as consequential quarter-century old, is built on the proposition that leaders
as those among leaders – and matter a great deal and followers hardly at all.
Good leadership is the stuff of countless courses, work-
have critical implications for shops, books, and articles. Everyone wants to understand
how managers should manage. just what makes leaders tick – the charismatic ones, the retir-
ing ones, and even the crooked ones. Good followership, by
contrast, is the stuff of nearly nothing. Most of the limited
by Barbara Kellerman research and writing on subordinates has tended to either
explain their behavior in the context of leaders’ development
rather than followers’ or mistakenly assume that followers
are amorphous, all one and the same. As a result, we hardly
notice, for example, that followers who tag along mindlessly
are altogether different from those who are deeply devoted.
Jill Calder

In reality, the distinctions among followers in groups and

organizations are every bit as consequential as those among

84 Harvard Business Review | December 2007 | hbr.org

1717 Kellerman.indd 84 11/1/07 8:43:24 PM

1717 Kellerman.indd 85 11/1/07 8:43:42 PM
 What Every Leader Needs to Know About Followers

leaders. This is particularly true in business: In an era of CEOs share power and influence with a range of players,
flatter, networked organizations and cross-cutting teams including boards, regulators, and shareholder activists. Ex-
of knowledge workers, it’s not always obvious who exactly ecutives at global companies must monitor the activities of
is following (or, for that matter, who exactly is leading) and subordinates situated thousands of miles away. And knowl-
how they are going about it. Reporting relationships are edge workers can choose independently to use collabora-
shifting, and new talent-management tools and approaches tive technologies to connect with colleagues and partners in
are constantly emerging. A confluence of changes – cultural other companies and countries in order to get things done.
and technological ones in particular – have influenced what The result is reminiscent of what management sage Peter
subordinates want and how they behave, especially in rela- Drucker suggested in his 1967 book The Effective Executive: In
tion to their ostensible bosses. an era dominated by knowledge workers rather than manual
It’s long overdue for leaders to acknowledge the impor- workers, expertise can – and often does – trump position
tance of understanding their followers better. In these next as an indicator of who is really leading and who is really
pages, I explore the evolving dynamic between leaders and following.
followers and offer a new typology for determining and ap-
preciating the differences among subordinates. These dis- Types of Followers
tinctions have critical implications for how leaders should Over the years, only a handful of researchers have attempted
lead and managers should manage. to study, segment, and speak to followers in some depth. To
various degrees, Harvard Business School professor Abraham
A Level Playing Field Zaleznik, Carnegie Mellon adjunct professor Robert Kelley,
Followers can be defined by their behavior – doing what oth- and executive coach Ira Chaleff have all argued that leaders
ers want them to do. But for the purposes of this article, and with even some understanding of what drives their subor-
to avoid confusing what followers do with who they are, I dinates can be a great help to themselves, their followers,
define followers according to their rank: They are low in the and their organizations. Each researcher further recognized
hierarchy and have less power, authority, and influence than the need to classify subordinates into different types. (See
their superiors. They generally go along to get along, particu- the sidebar “Distinguishing Marks: Three Other Follower
larly with those in higher positions. In the workplace, they Typologies.”)
may comply so as not to put money or stature at risk. In the Zaleznik classified subordinates into one of four types
community, they may comply to preserve collective stability according to two sets of variables – dominance versus sub-
and security – or simply because it’s the easiest thing to do. mission and activity versus passivity. His research findings
History tells us, however, that subordinates do not follow intended to inform corporate leaders in particular. By con-
all the time. As the ideas of the Enlightenment took hold trast, Kelley and Chaleff were more interested in the welfare
in the eighteenth century, for instance, ordinary people (in of those lower down the corporate ladder. Their work was
industrialized societies especially) became less dependent designed to challenge and counteract what Kelley called the
on kings, landowners, and the like, and their expectations “leadership myth” – the idea that leaders are all-powerful
changed accordingly – as did their sense of empowerment. and all-important.
The trend continues. Increasingly, followers think of them- Kelley classified subordinates into five types according
selves as free agents, not as dependent underlings. And they to their levels of independence and activity, but his spe-
act accordingly, often withholding support from bad lead- cial interest was in fostering “exemplary” followers – those
ers, throwing their weight behind good ones, and sometimes who acted with “intelligence, independence, courage, and a
claiming commanding voices for those lower down in the strong sense of ethics.” These individuals are critical to the
social or organizational hierarchy. success of all groups and organizations, he argued. Mean-
Witness the gradual demise of communism (and totali- while, Chaleff placed subordinates into one of four catego-
tarianism) in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and ries based on the degree to which the follower supports the
now China. And consider the social and political upheavals, leader and the degree to which the follower challenges the
all of them antiauthority, in the United States and elsewhere leader.
during the 1960s and 1970s. Similarly, there has been a dis- All three did pioneering work – and yet, as indicated,
persion of power at the highest levels of American business, it seems to have had little impact on how current leader-
partly because of changes in the cultures and structures of follower relationships are perceived. In part, this is because
corporations as well as the advance of new technologies. of cultural, organizational, and technological changes that

Barbara Kellerman is the James MacGregor Burns Lecturer in Public Leadership at the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University’s
John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts. This article is adapted from her latest book, Followership: How
Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders, due in February 2008 from Harvard Business School Press.

86 Harvard Business Review | December 2007 | hbr.org

1717 Kellerman.indd 86 11/1/07 8:43:50 PM

 ment that largely determines the
nature of the superior-subordinate
relationship. This is especially true
today: Because of the aforemen-
tioned changes in the cultures and
structures of organizations, for in-
stance, knowledge workers often
care as much if not more about
intrinsic factors – the quality of
their interpersonal relationships
with their superiors, for instance,
or their passion for the organiza-
tion’s mission – than about extrin-
sic rewards such as salary, titles, and
other benefits.
A typology based on a single,
simple metric – as opposed to the
multiple rating factors used by the
creators of previous segmenting
tools – offers leaders immediate in-
formation on whether and to what
degree their followers are buying
what they’re selling: Do your fol-
lowers participate actively in meet-
ings and proceedings? Do they
demonstrate engagement by pur-
suing dialogues, asking good ques-
tions, and generating new ideas?
Or have they checked out – pecking
away at their BlackBerries or keep-
have taken place in just the past few years. Manual laborers, ing a close eye on the clock? I categorize followers as isolates,
for instance, have been replaced by younger, tech-savvy bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards. Let’s look at
knowledge workers, who are generally less disposed to be, each type.
in Zaleznik’s parlance, “masochistic” or “withdrawn.” Isolates are completely detached. These followers are
The most important point of all these typologies, however, scarcely aware of what’s going on around them. Moreover,
is that leader-follower relationships, no matter the situation, they do not care about their leaders, know anything about
culture, or era in which they are embedded, are more simi- them, or respond to them in any obvious way. Their alien-
lar than they are different. Underlying them is some sort of ation is, nevertheless, of consequence. By knowing and doing
dominance and some sort of deference. Segmenting follow- nothing, these types of followers passively support the status
ers, then, serves at least two broad purposes: In theory, it en- quo and further strengthen leaders who already have the
ables us all to impose an order on groups and organizations upper hand. As a result, isolates can drag down their groups
that up to now has been largely lacking. In practice, it allows or organizations.
superiors and subordinates alike to discern who in the group Isolates are most likely to be found in large companies,
or organization is doing what – and why. where they can easily disappear in the maze of cubicles, of-
fices, departments, and divisions. Their attitudes and behav-
A New Typology iors attract little or no notice from those at the top levels of
The typology I’ve developed after years of study and obser- the organization as long as they do their jobs, even if only
vation aligns followers on one, all-important metric – level marginally well and with zero enthusiasm. Consider the
of engagement. I categorize all followers according to where member of the design team at a large consumer goods com-
they fall along a continuum that ranges from “feeling and pany who dutifully completes his individual assignments
doing absolutely nothing” to “being passionately committed but couldn’t care less about the rest of the company’s prod-
and deeply involved.” I chose level of engagement because, ucts and processes – he just needs to pay the bills. Or witness
regardless of context, it’s the follower’s degree of involve- the typical American voter – or, more accurately, nonvoter.

hbr.org | December 2007 | Harvard Business Review 87

1717 Kellerman.indd 87 11/1/07 8:43:56 PM

 What Every Leader Needs to Know About Followers

In 2004, no fewer than 15 million Americans said they had active way. Their withdrawal also amounts to tacit support
not gone to the polls because they were “not interested in for whoever and whatever constitutes the status quo.
the election” or were “not involved in politics.” Groups or Like isolates, bystanders can drag down the rest of the
organizations rarely profit from isolates, especially if their group or organization. But unlike isolates, they are perfectly
numbers are high. Unwittingly, they impede improvement aware of what is going on around them; they just choose not
and slow change. to take the time, the trouble, or, to be fair, sometimes the
To mitigate the isolates’ negative effect on companies, risk to get involved. A notorious example from the public
leaders and managers first need to ask themselves the fol- sector is people who refuse to intervene when a crime is
lowing questions: Do we have any isolates among us, and, if being committed – commonly referred to as the Genovese
so, how many? Where are they? Why are they so detached? syndrome or the bystander effect. A corporate counterpart
Answering these questions won’t be easy given that isolates might be the account representative at a financial services
by their very nature are invisible to the top team. Senior company who goes along with the new CEO’s recently man-
management will need to acquire information from those dated process changes, even as some of her colleagues are
at other levels of the organization by having informal and being demoted or fired for pointing out inefficiencies in the
formal conversations about managers and employees who new system. To speak up or get involved would be to put her
seem lethargic or indifferent about their work, the group, own career and reputation on the line at a time when the CEO
or both. is still weeding out “loyal” employees from “problem” ones.
The next step, of course, is to take action. Depending on There are bystanders everywhere – and, like isolates, they
the reasons for alienation, there may be ways to engage tend to go unnoticed, especially in large organizations, be-
isolates in the workplace. If it’s a matter of job satisfaction, cause they consciously choose to fly under the radar. In
a training and development plan might be drawn up. If it’s the workplace, silent but productive bystander followers
a matter of job stress, a new schedule that allows for several can be useful to managers who just want people to do as
days of work from home might be considered. In any case, they are told – but they will inevitably disappoint those
leaders and managers will need to consider the return from bosses who want people to actually care about the organi-
making such investments in isolates: If it will be low or non- zation’s mission. There are ways to bring bystanders along,
existent, managers may ultimately decide to part ways with however. As with isolates, the key is to determine the root
these followers. Employers that are satisfied with those causes of their alienation and offer appropriate intrinsic or
who do an adequate job and no more might choose to keep extrinsic rewards that may increase their levels of engage-
these types of followers. ment, and, ultimately, their productivity. Bystanders, perhaps
Bystanders observe but do not participate. These free much more than isolates, may be swayed by such incentives.
riders deliberately stand aside and disengage, both from Participants are engaged in some way. Regardless of
their leaders and from their groups or organizations. They whether these followers clearly support their leaders and
may go along passively when it is in their self-interest to do organizations or clearly oppose them, they care enough to
so, but they are not internally motivated to engage in an invest some of what they have (time or money, for example)

Distinguishing Marks: who want to be controlled by them), and activity and passivity
(from those who initiate and intrude to those who do
Three Other Follower Typologies little or nothing). Zaleznik further segmented followers into four
groups, two of which reflected his Freudian perspective on
While there is a landslide of materials out there dissecting and explaining
relationships: Impulsive (rebellious, sometimes spontaneous and
the intricacies of leaders, very few people have devoted time and atten-
courageous), compulsive (controlling but passive, in part because
tion to the study of followers. Here are the exceptions.
they feel guilty about privately wanting to dominate), masochistic
(want to submit to the control of the authority figure), and withdrawn

1
Abraham Zaleznik. In 1965, this Harvard Business (care little or not at all about what happens at work and behave
School professor argued in these pages that “individuals on accordingly).
both sides of the vertical authority relationship” matter to Ten years later, Zaleznik coauthored Power and the Corporate
how organizations perform (see “The Dynamics of Subordinacy,” Mind with Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries and argued that leaders
HBR May–June 1965). To distinguish among the different kinds of who know more about what makes their followers tick put them-
subordinates, he placed them along two axes: dominance and sub- selves, their followers, and their organizations in an advantageous
mission (from those who want to control their superiors to those position.

88 Harvard Business Review | December 2007 | hbr.org

1717 Kellerman.indd 88 11/1/07 8:44:02 PM

 to try to make an impact. Consider the physicians and sci- perhaps bringing in experts from the outside to consult with
entists who developed the painkiller Vioxx: They felt per- him and his knowledge workers as Vioxx was being produced
sonally invested in producing a best-selling drug for Merck, and marketed – and especially as it was being questioned.
bringing it to market – and defending it even in the face of Indeed, if Gilmartin had understood the leader-follower
later revelations that the drug could create very serious side dynamic even a bit better, he might have been able to help
effects in some users. They were driven by their own pas- his company avert public relations and legal disasters.
sions (ambition, innovation, creation, helping people) – not Although Gilmartin’s subordinates acted as free agents,
necessarily by senior managers. they supported him nonetheless – which highlights an im-
When participants support their leaders and managers, portant point about followers’ attitudes and opinions. When
they are highly coveted. They are the fuel that drives the it comes to participant followers, and to the other engaged
follower types described later
in this article, leaders need to
watch them overall and pay
When it comes to engaged follower types, particularly close attention
to whether their subordi-
leaders need to watch them overall and pay nates are for or against
them. (The for-or-against
particularly close attention to whether their question does not even
subordinates are for or against them. come up for disengaged iso-
lates and bystanders.)
Activists feel strongly one
way or another about their
engine. In the workplace, for instance, they can make effec- leaders and organizations, and they act accordingly. These
tive junior partners. When they disapprove of their leaders followers are eager, energetic, and engaged. They are heav-
and managers, however, or when they act as independent ily invested in people and processes, so they work hard ei-
agents, the situation gets more complicated. Former Merck ther on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even
CEO Raymond Gilmartin, for instance, was not trained as ei- unseat them.
ther a physician or a scientist. So it was easy enough for the When Paul Wolfowitz ran into trouble as president of
people who on paper were his subordinates – the physicians the World Bank, for instance, it was the activists among
and researchers championing Vioxx – to get ahead of him his staffers who led the charge against him. As soon as the
with a drug that brought the company a whole lot of trouble. news broke that Wolfowitz had intervened in a profes-
(Vioxx was pulled from the market in 2004.) sional situation on behalf of a woman with whom he was
Gilmartin could have done a much better job of commu- having a personal relationship, members of the World Bank
nicating with and learning from these participant followers, Group Staff Association promptly issued a statement: “The

2 3
Robert Kelley. In 1992, Kelley, now an adjunct professor Ira Chaleff. The author of the 1995 book The Coura-
at Carnegie Mellon, published The Power of Followership, geous Follower was, like Robert Kelley, primarily focused
which essentially urged followers to follow not blindly on empowering subordinates, encouraging them to actively
but with deliberate forethought. He distinguished followers from support leaders they deemed good and to actively oppose those they
one another according to factors such as motivation and behavior in deemed bad. He classified subordinates according to the degree to
the workplace and ended up with five different followership styles: which they supported leaders and the degree to which they chal-
Alienated followers think critically and independently but do not lenged them. He came up with four different types of subordinates:
willingly participate in the groups of which they are members. Passive implementers, partners, individualists, and resources. Implementers
followers do not think critically and do not actively participate; they are the most common, and leaders depend on them above all to
let their leaders do their thinking for them. Conformist followers do get the work done. Partners are even better: They strongly support
participate in their groups and organizations but are content simply their leaders, but they are also ready and willing to challenge them
to take orders. Exemplary followers are nearly perfect, or at least as necessary. Individualists can be a bit of a problem to leaders,
they perform well across the board. And pragmatic followers play because they tend to withhold support from people in positions of
both sides of the fence, ranking in the middle in terms of independent authority. And resources “do an honest day’s work for a few days’ pay
thinking and level of activity. but don’t go beyond the minimum expected of them.”

hbr.org | December 2007 | Harvard Business Review 89

1717 Kellerman.indd 89 11/1/07 8:44:09 PM

 What Every Leader Needs to Know About Followers

President must acknowledge that his conduct has compro- pagandist Josef Goebbels. As conditions in Germany began
mised the integrity and effectiveness of the World Bank deteriorating, with the Allies closing in, Goebbels remained
Group and has destroyed the staff’s trust in his leadership. close to the leader – straight through to the end: Shortly
He must act honorably and resign.” after the führer committed suicide, Goebbels took the most
Activists who strongly support their leaders and managers radical diehard-type step when he and his wife took their
can be important allies, whether they are direct or indirect lives along with those of their six children. Without Hitler,
reports. Activists are not necessarily high in number, though, they considered life not worth living.
if only because their level of commitment demands an ex- Of course, not all diehard followers are so extreme in
pense of time and energy that most people find difficult their devotion. But they are willing, by definition, to en-
to sustain. Of course, this same passion also means they danger their own health and welfare in the service of their
can and often do have a considerable impact on a group cause. Soldiers the world over, for instance, risk life and
or organization. Those activists who are as loyal as they are limb in their commitment to protect and defend. They are
competent and committed are frequently in the leader or trained and willing to follow nearly blindly the orders of
manager’s inner circle – simply because they can be counted their superiors, who depend on them absolutely to get the
on to dedicate their (usually long) working hours to the job done.
mission as their superiors see it. Sometimes diehards can be found in more ordinary cir-
Some activist followers are effectively encouraged by their cumstances, even in traditional organizations in which they
superiors to take matters into their own hands. This was the are motivated to act in ways judged by others to be extreme.
case at Best Buy. CEO Brad Anderson had consistently en- Whistleblowers are a case in point. Usually we think them
couraged “bottom-up, stealth innovation” at the retail organi- heroes and heroines. In fact, these diehards can and often
zation, and human resource managers Jody Thompson and do pay a high price for their unconventional behavior. Bun-
Cali Ressler were bold – and smart – enough to take him up natine H. Greenhouse, a U.S. Army contracting official who
on it. They wanted to create policies that would enable a criticized a large, noncompetitive government contract with
workplace without any fixed schedules – a “results-oriented Halliburton for work being done in Iraq, was punished for
work environment,” or ROWE. Best Buy employees at all being so outspoken. She had initially registered her com-
levels of the organization – in the stores and at headquar- plaint only to those inside the Army. When this had no effect,
ters – would be free to set their own hours and come and she testified in 2005 before the Senate Democratic Policy
go as they pleased, as long as their work got done. On their Committee and described the contract as “the most blatant
own, Thompson and Ressler considered how to make such and improper contract abuse I have witnessed.” Incensed
a policy work, how exactly to measure results in the ab- by her remark, and citing poor performance, the Army re-
sence of set hours, how to implement the new processes moved Greenhouse from her elite Senior Executive Service
that might be required, and so forth. In 2003, they presented position and reassigned her to a lesser job.
their ideas to several unit managers who were struggling As I mentioned earlier, attitudes and opinions do not mat-
with complaints from top performers about undesirable and ter much when we are talking about isolates and bystanders,
unsustainable levels of stress in the workplace. The manag- if only because they do little or even nothing. They matter
ers were open to hearing about ROWE – more important, a great deal, however, when we are talking about partici-
they were willing to test it in their units. Word gradually pants, activists, and diehards. Do these followers support
spread about the grassroots experiment, building strong sup- their leader? Or, rank notwithstanding, are they using their
port and acceptance in various departments, until it finally available resources to resist people in positions of power,
reached management’s ears – after some parts of the com- authority, and influence? My typology suggests that good
pany had already implemented the new policy. The HR man- leaders should pay special attention to those who demon-
agers’ program eventually was rolled out companywide. strate their strong support or their vehement opposition.
Diehards are prepared to go down for their cause – It’s not difficult to see the signs – participants and especially
whether it’s an individual, an idea, or both. These follow- activists and diehards wear their hearts on their sleeves.
ers may be deeply devoted to their leaders, or they may be
strongly motivated to oust their leaders by any means neces- Good and Bad Followers
sary. They exhibit an all-consuming dedication to someone Certain character and personality traits are nearly always
or something they deem worthy. associated with being a good leader (integrity, intelligence,
Diehard followers are rare; their all-encompassing com- and wise judgment, for instance), as are particular skills and
mitment means they emerge only in those situations that capacities (effective communication and decision making,
are dire or close to it. They can be either a strong asset to for example). But given the different roles played by lead-
their leaders or managers or a dangerous liability. Hitler’s ers and followers, what can reasonably be said about what
most ardent disciple from the start was, arguably, Nazi pro- constitutes a good follower? More to the point, what distin-

90 Harvard Business Review | December 2007 | hbr.org

1717 Kellerman.indd 90 11/1/07 8:44:16 PM

 guishes a good follower from a bad one? Here my typology cation and may have chafed at his arrogant leadership style.
can again be of help. The tipping point for them, however, was Raines’s misman-
First and foremost, there is this: Followers who do some- agement of the scandal involving wayward reporter Jayson
thing are nearly always preferred to followers who do noth- Blair – an incident they believed could create lasting damage
ing. In other words, isolates and bystanders (little or no to an institution to which they were deeply committed and
engagement, little or no action) don’t have much to recom- where credibility is everything.
mend them. Then again, doing something is not, in and of Conversely, bad followers will do nothing whatsoever
itself, sufficient, especially in cases of bad leadership. On the to contribute to the group or organization. Or they will
actively oppose a leader who
is good. Or they will actively
support a leader who is bad.
Clearly Chainsaw Al’s lap-
Good followers invest time and energy in dogs fall into this last cat-
making informed judgments about who their egory. Most of the sub-
ordinates in his inner
leaders are and what they espouse. Then they circle – those who were
closest to him and who ar-
take the appropriate action. guably could have afforded,
professionally and financially,
to oppose his ultimately de-
one hand, the story of “Chainsaw Al” Dunlap, former CEO structive behavior – did nothing to try to shorten his miser-
of Scott Paper and Sunbeam, is one of a powerful leader able reign.
with a mean streak, an intimidating executive who culti- •••
vated a culture of tyranny and misery while realizing success Contrary to what the leadership industry would have you
at Scott Paper and failure at Sunbeam. On the other hand, believe, the relationship between superiors and their sub-
it’s the story of isolates and bystanders who were unwilling ordinates is not one-sided. Nor are followers all one and the
or unable to stop him from leading so poorly. It’s also a tale same – and they should not be treated as such. Insofar as
of participants and activists who did something; trouble was they can, followers act in their own self-interests, just as lead-
they supported rather than opposed a leader who did not ers do. And while they may lack authority, at least in com-
deserve it. parison with their superiors, followers do not lack power
Or consider the extreme case of Darfur, which New York and influence.
Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has long described as a situ- Spurred by cultural and technological advances, more
ation in which there is enough blame to go around, including and more followers are either challenging their leaders or,
to those among us who have known about the genocide for in many cases, simply circumventing them altogether. Par-
years but have done nothing to stop it. Kristof praises certain ticipant, activist, and diehard followers invested in animal
kinds of followers, however – participants and activists who, rights can, for instance, on their own now mass-send mes-
despite being without power, authority, and influence, did sages via e-mail, collect data using concealed cameras, and
what they reasonably could to stop the murder and mayhem. post their galvanizing images on various websites. Their
One such follower was the 12-year-old from a small town in work has motivated chains like McDonald’s and Burger
Oregon who, after seeing the film Hotel Rwanda, formed a King to ask their meat and egg suppliers to follow guide-
Sudan Club and raised money by selling eggs and washing lines that include providing extra water, more wing room,
cars. Another was the doctoral student who in his spare time and fresh air for egg-laying hens. In 2007, Burger King went
became the foremost expert on how investments by foreign a step further and announced that it would buy eggs and
companies “underwrite the Sudanese genocide.” pork only from suppliers that did not confine their animals
Good followers will actively support a leader who is good in crates or cages.
(effective and ethical) and will actively oppose a leader who As this example and countless others confirm, it’s long
is bad (ineffective and unethical). Good followers invest overdue for academics and practitioners to adopt a more
time and energy in making informed judgments about who expansive view of leadership – one that sees leaders and
their leaders are and what they espouse. Then they take the followers as inseparable, indivisible, and impossible to con-
appropriate action. The senior editors and other newsroom ceive the one without the other.
staffers at the New York Times, for instance, certainly may
have had problems with the way Howell Raines, then the Reprint R0712F
executive editor, was trying to remake the venerable publi- To order, see page 147.

hbr.org | December 2007 | Harvard Business Review 91

1717 Kellerman.indd 91 11/1/07 8:44:22 PM

Copyright 2007 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions
may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your
institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your
institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing
including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations
please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.