Followership in tech: improve team decisions without a leadership title
You notice a problem in a proposal. You are not leading the meeting, and the person presenting it has far more experience. By the time you have worked out how to phrase the concern, the conversation has moved on.
Knowing something useful and knowing how to contribute it are different skills.
Followership offers a perspective on that contribution. It gives us a way to discuss the responsibility and judgement involved in supporting a shared outcome, including when that means questioning a plan.
The UK Defence connection
The British Army’s 2023 Followership Doctrine Note treats leadership and followership as related roles. It describes followers contributing expertise and independent thought, and includes a responsibility to offer constructive challenge.
For a tech team, I would draw on those principles to ask how each person can help the group make a sound decision. This is a civilian application, rather than a proposal to copy military hierarchy into a workplace. Following a shared direction still leaves room to question assumptions and raise concerns.
A practical tech example
Consider a junior analyst helping prepare a dashboard for a training provider. A proposed chart combines course enquiries with completed applications under the label “applications”.
The analyst notices that a person can enquire without applying. Adding the two figures could also count someone twice. The chart might lead stakeholders to believe more people had applied than the data supports.
She doesn’t need to own the dashboard to identify that problem. She does need a clear way to explain it, and the team needs a useful way to respond.
How to put it into practice
Understand the decision being made
Purpose: Connect your contribution to the shared task.
First, establish what the dashboard needs to help someone decide. Is the provider assessing demand, planning application support or reporting completed applications? Different questions need different measures.
A useful contribution might begin: “Before this goes into the report, can I check what the chart is meant to measure?” That opens a specific question without requiring a complete alternative dashboard. If the definitions are unclear, finding that gap is valuable work in itself.
Bring the observation and its consequence
Purpose: Make the concern concrete enough to investigate.
The analyst could say: “The total includes enquiries and completed applications. Some people may appear in both. Under this label, a reader could interpret it as the number of applications.”
Where access permits, attach a small, appropriate example or point to the definitions. Keep personal information out of a broad meeting or chat. Distinguish a confirmed issue from something that needs checking: “I have confirmed the mixed categories; I still need to check whether the records overlap.”
Offer a bounded next step
Purpose: Help the team move forward without absorbing the whole problem.
A useful suggestion could be to show enquiries and completed applications separately while the measure owner checks definitions. The decision owner can then agree the reporting approach with the relevant stakeholders.
If the analyst can help investigate, agree the scope and what other work moves. “I can check a permitted sample this afternoon if we defer the formatting task” makes capacity visible. Spotting a risk should not automatically make someone responsible for every piece of work needed to resolve it.
Close the loop with the decision owner
Purpose: Make the response as clear as the concern.
The meeting lead should acknowledge the observation, name who will check it and explain when the dashboard decision will be revisited. If the concern is not accepted, give a reason that can be understood and questioned.
In this example, the team could separate the chart categories and ask the reporting owner to confirm the labels before circulation. The analyst then knows what action followed. If later evidence changes the picture, there is a named route for raising it again.
A record you can use
What to try next
If you lead a team, notice what happens after somebody questions a proposal. Make room for written input, follow up on unanswered concerns and recognise useful contributions without rewarding people for silently taking on more work.
For your next team decision, prepare one evidence-based observation and one practical question. You can help the team think clearly while respecting the responsibilities and capacity of the people involved.
Source: British Army, A British Army Followership Doctrine Note (2023). The tech examples and working tools are Coded Female adaptations.
You May Also Like
Why a Skills Matrix for Employees is Essential for Business Success
How to ask for learning time at work, with a practical one-page plan
