Leadership is Half the Story

What if everything you’ve been told about leadership is only half the story? In Leadership Is Half the Story, Marc and Samantha Hurwitz challenge the foundational assumption that organizations rise or fall solely on the strength of their leaders. They argue that great leadership cannot exist without great followership—that the relationship between the two is dynamic, reciprocal, and co-creative. The book contends that to build successful, engaged, and innovative workplaces, you must learn to excel not only at leading but also at following, switching fluidly between both roles depending on the situation.

The Hurwitzes call this interplay the Generative Partnership® model. In this model, leadership and followership are not hierarchical but complementary roles that, when combined effectively, generate results greater than the sum of their parts. This kind of synergy—“1 + 1 > 2 + NEW,” as the authors phrase it—creates both productivity and creativity, what they call a state of “co-flow.” The book explores how we can move beyond the outdated hero-centric view of leadership into a new era of collaboration and shared accountability.

The Shift from the “Me Generation” to the “We Generation”

The authors begin by observing a seismic shift in how work gets done. In 1980, only 20% of work was done by teams; by 2010, that figure had risen to 80%. Yet many organizations still operate as if individual achievement were the ultimate currency. The Hurwitzes argue that in a “We Generation” world, success depends less on stand-alone brilliance and more on the ability to collaborate, communicate, and pivot between leading and following as circumstances demand. They describe this essential skill as interpersonal agility—the ability to build relationships quickly and adapt to new interpersonal contexts, especially in workplaces where team structures, managers, and projects change constantly.

The Moment of Realization: Why Followership Matters

Marc Hurwitz’s professional “aha” moment came when rapid career advancement was followed by an unexpected stall. After excelling for years, a change in management left him struggling. He realized his technical skill and leadership were no longer enough—he was failing not as a leader, but as a follower. There was no common language for that role, no framework for understanding what good followership looked like, and no training on how to excel at it. His insight, refined through research and practice, became the core of the book: followership isn’t passive obedience—it’s an active, vital, and teachable skill that partners leadership to create thriving workplaces.

The Generative Partnership® Model

At the heart of the Hurwitzes’ philosophy is the Generative Partnership® Model, a framework that defines five guiding principles and five skill pairs that integrate leadership and followership. The model insists that both roles are equal, dynamic, and different. Leadership “sets the frame”—the vision, structure, and boundaries within which creativity occurs—while followership “creates within it,” transforming direction into action and innovation. At its most effective, the relationship between the two generates outcomes that are both efficient and imaginative.

The five guiding principles are:

• Partnerships need leadership and followership; they are equal, dynamic, and different.
• Leadership is setting the frame; followership is creating within it.
• Lean in to build connection.
• Value the positive and build on it.
• Have deeply shared goals.

These principles are operationalized through five corresponding skill pairs: Decision Framing and Decision Advocating, Relationship Framing and Relationship Building, Organizational Mentoring and Organizational Agility, Cascade Communicating and Dashboard Communicating, and Performance Coaching and Peak Performing. Each pairing reflects the yin-yang dynamic between leading and following—both sides are necessary for collaboration to flourish.

Why This Matters Now

The workplace today is fluid, unpredictable, and interdependent. Old models of leadership—whether command-and-control hierarchy or charisma-driven hero worship—collapse under the complexity of modern collaboration. The Hurwitzes argue that organizations fixate on developing leaders while ignoring the equally critical need to train followers. This oversight weakens communication, stalls innovation, and breeds disengagement. When people at every level see themselves as partners in leadership and followership, engagement skyrockets and relationships become more resilient to change.

In short, Leadership Is Half the Story is not just about how to lead better—it’s about how to work better together. Whether you’re a CEO or an intern, the authors want you to see yourself not as a title or a task but as a partner in a generative system. By embracing both roles, you don’t just adapt to the future of work—you help create it.

For most people, being called a follower sounds like an insult. We equate following with weakness, submission, or lack of initiative. The Hurwitzes flip this idea on its head. They argue that followership is not the shadow of leadership—but its counterpart. It is the active skill set that turns vision into reality. Without strong followers, even the best leaders fail. More provocatively, they suggest that followership may be the missing competency responsible for many workplace failures, from failed mergers to disengaged teams.

From Followersheep to Wolf Packs

The book opens this argument with a playful but profound metaphor: the difference between sheep and wolves. “Followersheep,” the authors write, simply obey, even when obedience leads them off a cliff. True followers, like wolves, are alert, intelligent, and fluid in role—they know when to lead and when to follow. In a wolf pack, leadership shifts fluidly based on the task at hand: hunting, protecting, or navigating terrain. Humans, they argue, must learn to operate the same way.

The Four Dimensions of Followership

Based on extensive research with executives and teams, the Hurwitzes show that good followership has four defining features:

• It has organizational value—improving productivity, sales, and customer satisfaction by up to 43%.
• It has personal value—those with strong followership skills advance faster and enjoy more fulfilling careers.
• It is a distinct skill—not just obedience but collaboration, initiative, and emotional intelligence.
• It requires development—few people are trained in it, and organizations rarely reward it.

Their research even shows that follower emotional intelligence often matters more than a leader’s. In one study, teams where the “follower” had high emotional intelligence outperformed those where only the leader did. In other words, strong followership makes leadership work better.

Beyond Managing Up

The authors emphasize that followership is not about manipulation or pandering (“managing up”). Managing up, they note, is self-serving—“getting your boss to do what you want.” Followership is purpose-driven—helping your team achieve shared goals. Great followers don’t flatter their leaders; they make them better. They bring clarity where there’s confusion, initiative where there’s inertia, and courage where there’s complacency. (Ira Chaleff’s The Courageous Follower and Robert Kelley’s The Power of Followership explore similar ideas.)

The Hidden Cost of Ignoring Followership

Most workplaces, the Hurwitzes observe, ignore followership altogether. They train only leaders, evaluate only leadership potential, and reward people who climb hierarchies rather than strengthen partnerships. This creates two toxic effects: a halo effect, where people are overvalued because they follow well (and their flaws get ignored), and a pitchfork effect, where poor followership under a new boss leads to sudden dismissal. In their survey of career-transition consultants, 95% said their clients had a new boss in the last 18 months—a stark sign that failing to adapt to new partnerships is often fatal to one’s career.

Making the Invisible Visible

Finally, the authors remind us that you can’t improve what you can’t name. Most organizations don’t even have a vocabulary for followership, so the first step is to talk about it. When you treat followership as a real, trainable discipline—coachable, measurable, and valuable—it transforms relationships, accelerates learning, and unleashes performance across an organization. In short, leadership is not enough—and now, thanks to this book, followership doesn’t have to be invisible anymore.

If followership reshapes how we think about our roles, leadership itself must evolve as well. The Hurwitzes argue that modern leadership is not about control, charisma, or authority—it’s about co-creation. We live in an age of shared responsibility, where leadership is not a one-way power dynamic but a constantly shifting set of interactions. The best teams, they note, feel less like hierarchies and more like jazz bands: each member takes a solo at times, but the music depends on listening and passing the spotlight.

Dynamic Leadership: Passing the Ball

To illustrate, Marc and Samantha borrow a metaphor from basketball: “Who’s got the ball?” In any game, leadership shifts moment by moment. A player leads while dribbling, but as soon as they pass, they take on a new role—supporting, defending, or positioning to assist. Leadership, like the ball, must move constantly. This metaphor reminds you to ask not “Who’s in charge?” but “Who’s got the ball right now?” Sometimes it’s you; sometimes it’s not. The mark of a mature leader is knowing the difference.

Extending Leadership Capacity

Organizations, the authors insist, need to expand leadership capacity—not just at the top but throughout every level. Research by Bruce Avolio and colleagues shows that the return on investment for leadership training is highest among frontline staff, not executives. Why? Because leadership is a behavior, not a position. The military, for example, trains soldiers in both leadership and followership long before they earn formal rank. Likewise, every employee should be capable of leading projects, mentoring peers, and modeling professional integrity, regardless of title.

The Rise of People-Centered Leadership

The Hurwitzes cite Google’s famed “Project Oxygen,” which surprised the company by proving that technical brilliance mattered less than human connection. The best managers weren’t necessarily the smartest engineers but the ones who cared, listened, and coached. As Google’s Laszlo Bock put it, “Being a good coach and communicating well mattered more than raw expertise.” This finding mirrors the authors’ broader argument: 21st-century leadership is less about systems and more about people-focus. It means coaching instead of commanding, enabling instead of enforcing, and connecting instead of controlling.

Rethinking Power: From Process to Partnership

Traditional leadership has been “process-focused”—concerned with efficiency, control, and measurement. The new model is “people-focused”—concerned with empowerment, collaboration, and purpose. The difference is profound. Instead of asking “How can I get you to perform?” great leaders ask “How can we achieve together?” This shift echoes the work of Daniel Goleman (Emotional Intelligence) and Max De Pree (Leadership Is an Art), who emphasize empathy and shared growth over authority.

For the Hurwitzes, the real measure of leadership isn’t how many followers you have—but how many partners. That, they argue, is what drives not just performance but purpose, engagement, and joy in the modern workplace.

The first guiding principle of the Generative Partnership® Model captures its essence: partnerships need both leadership and followership—and the two are equal, dynamic, and different. The Hurwitzes support this with surprising evidence from nature. Their vivid story of stickleback fish demonstrates that collaboration is a universal force, extending far beyond human organizations.

Lessons from Fish—and The Beatles

In controlled experiments, “bold” stickleback fish forage more aggressively, while “shy” fish stay hidden. When paired, something remarkable happens: both fish forage more effectively together than either could alone. Leadership and followership roles shift back and forth fluidly, benefiting both parties. The point is simple but profound—results improve when one leads and one follows, but both contribute.

Humans function no differently. The authors liken this dynamic to the partnership of Steve Jobs and Tim Cook: Jobs the visionary (leader), Cook the organizer (follower)—yet both switching roles as needed. They also invoke The Beatles as a masterclass in dynamic collaboration. Each member led when their own song was at stake, and followed when another took the lead. The result? Creativity that changed music forever. Leadership and followership, when both are strong, create not hierarchy but harmony.

Function Over Friendship

Interestingly, generative partnerships don’t require personal warmth. Even when The Beatles fought, they still produced genius. Likewise, great collaboration depends not on affection but on shared respect and differentiated roles. The Hurwitzes urge readers to see others as complements, not copies. Leadership and followership are not identical behaviors; each requires distinct yet coordinated skills. Followership isn’t “mini-leadership”—it’s dancing backward in high heels, to borrow Ginger Rogers’s phrase.

Guiding Principles in Action

What can you do with this knowledge? First, recognize which role you’re in at any given moment. Then, intentionally switch roles when the situation demands it. When someone else has the expertise or energy to lead, follow wholeheartedly. When the moment calls for direction, lead decisively. Finally, give role-specific feedback—evaluate others based on how well they fulfill their current role, not your preferred one. This nuanced awareness transforms teams from dysfunctional to generative, from 1 + 1 = 0 to 1 + 1 > 2 + NEW.

If Principle 1 establishes equality, Principle 2 defines distinction. Leadership, the authors write, is about setting the frame—clarifying purpose, direction, and boundaries—while followership is about creating within it. This division of labor ensures that creativity has structure and freedom simultaneously. As the Hurwitzes playfully demonstrate through their salsa dancing lessons, success depends on balance: if both partners try to lead, chaos ensues; if neither leads, the dance stalls.

Framing: The Leadership Responsibility

A frame defines the conditions for success. It clarifies what outcomes matter, what constraints to respect, and what resources can be used. Contrary to popular belief, creativity flourishes best within boundaries—not blank slates. When leaders fail to frame challenges clearly (“Be innovative!” without defining the scope), teams flounder. But when a leader carves out a clear space for exploration—the right risks, resources, and goals—people become bolder, not narrower.

Creating Within the Frame: The Followership Role

Followers, in turn, have three obligations. First, seek clarification when the frame isn’t clear. Second, provide feedback when the frame isn’t working. Third, innovate boldly inside the frame. In other words, think outside the box—but inside the boss. The authors use examples from literature (Shakespeare’s sonnets, Dylan Thomas’s villanelles) and business (Wikipedia’s “Five Pillars”) to show how constraints can enhance creativity. The best followers don’t rebel against boundaries—they expand them.

Scouting and Settling: A Practical Frame

One of their most useful tools is the Scouting and Settling frame. Some projects require “scouting”—exploring possibilities, taking risks, and experimenting. Others require “settling”—executing, refining, and delivering. Each calls for different roles. In scouting mode, followers should roam widely and suggest new directions, while leaders encourage exploration but guard against chaos. In settling mode, leaders tighten focus and ensure alignment, while followers concentrate on precision and follow-through. Knowing which mode you’re in prevents “scouts” and “settlers” from frustrating one another—and keeps partnerships productive.

By blending leadership’s framing with followership’s creating, teams become both disciplined and dynamic. It’s less about hierarchy than choreography.

If framing defines structure, connection fuels vitality. In Principle 3, the Hurwitzes argue that the most generative partnerships thrive on connection—a sense of mutual understanding, trust, and rhythmic exchange. Borrowing again from salsa, they describe the need for partners to “lean in” toward each other just enough to maintain tension and flow. Too little pressure, and the connection collapses; too much pressure, and it becomes constricting. Somewhere in between lies what they call the Generative Point.

The Spectrum: Hands-Off vs. Micromanaging

On one end of the spectrum is the “hands-off” attitude—leaders who withhold guidance and followers who insist on independence. On the other is micromanagement, where every move is scrutinized. Both stem from avoidance, not trust. The authors argue that effective partnerships rest at the midpoint: both parties lean in—curious, communicative, and supportive without smothering initiative. Sheryl Sandberg may have used “lean in” to describe ambition, but here it means relational presence.

Finding the Generative Point

The Hurwitzes’ Lean-In Curve visualizes the relationship between connection and productivity. Productivity rises sharply as partners lean in, peaks at the Generative Point, then plummets when control outweighs trust. The trick is to check regularly where your relationships lie on this curve. Their “Partnership Checkup” tool encourages you to map your key relationships—bosses, peers, and direct reports—and adjust behaviors: Do you need to engage more? Step back? Listen better?

Connection Trumps Competence

To prove this, they cite Google’s Project Oxygen again: the best managers weren’t experts but connectors. Employees valued communication, empathy, and accessibility more than technical mastery. “No amount of pay,” Laszlo Bock said, “can compensate for a lack of human connection.” The Hurwitzes show that connection multiplies competence—it transforms knowledge into trust and coordination. Engagement, they conclude, isn’t built through incentives but through presence: two humans leaning toward one another in shared purpose.

Negativity may get attention, but positivity gets results. In Principle 4, the Hurwitzes challenge the conventional wisdom that constructive criticism drives improvement. Neuroscience, they note, proves otherwise: people perform better when they feel safe, supported, and valued. The principle, summarized by two words—“Value” and “Build”—means recognizing what’s working before fixing what’s not.

The Psychology of Positivity

Humans suffer from an “automatic vigilance” bias: we notice and remember negatives more than positives. Managers often think criticism motivates improvement because bad performance is usually followed by better performance (statistically, that’s just regression to the mean). In truth, consistent recognition sharpens performance more than consistent critique. When leaders believe in their people’s potential, they trigger what psychologists call the Pygmalion Effect—people rise to meet expectations.

The Power of Strengths

Echoing Gallup research, the Hurwitzes explain that people who focus on strengths are six times more engaged and far less likely to quit. They highlight the Seth family, owners of multiple Tim Hortons franchises, whose relentless celebration of employees’ efforts created extraordinary performance. Recognition builds momentum. Positivity, they argue, is a choice and a strategy, not a mood.

Constructive Feedback Without the “Sh%t Sandwich”

What about improvement? The authors propose a simple but powerful method: PIP—Positives, Improvements, Plans. Start with the positives (what’s working and why), move to improvements (what could be even better), then finish with plans (concrete actions). This replaces the infamous “hamburger method,” which buries criticism between fake compliments. Unlike false praise, PIP is honest, actionable, and collaborative. It keeps feedback future-focused and energizing.

Ultimately, valuing the positive doesn’t mean ignoring the negative—it means framing improvement as partnership, not punishment. As the Hurwitzes put it, “It’s the combination of valuing and building that turns performance into growth.”

Even the best partnerships fail when their goals diverge. In the book’s fifth principle, the Hurwitzes reveal that shared goals are the foundation of all generative work. But they make an essential distinction: shared goals are not identical goals. They’re deeply connected ones that align purpose across individuals, teams, and the organization.

The Beatles Syndrome

No example captures this better than The Beatles. At their peak, their shared goal was “to reach the toppermost of the poppermost.” But as individual ambitions grew—Lennon to activism, Harrison to spirituality, McCartney to pop perfection—their deeply shared goal dissolved. The same happens to teams when subgroups chase different definitions of success. Shared goals keep creative diversity from fracturing into competition.

Same vs. Shared

Setting the same goals for everyone (“Everyone must go 10% faster”) leads to dysfunction, as seen in the Hurwitzes’ example of an IT team whose “speed” mandate crashed quality. Shared goals require interdependence—objectives that no one can achieve alone. A shared goal might be “reduce project time by 10% while maintaining quality and collaboration.” That invites collaboration, not competition.

The Deeply Shared Goals Audit

To turn this principle into practice, the authors propose the Deeply Shared Goals Audit: a team exercise for surfacing everyone’s personal, individual, and team goals, and categorizing them as Shared, Same, Conflicting, or Unrelated. Then, the team reframes goals to maximize overlap. For instance, “I want more work-life balance” becomes “We want everyone to sustain healthy balance.” This small linguistic shift transforms isolated desires into collective aspirations.

Shared goals, the Hurwitzes say, are the connective tissue of generative partnerships—the difference between parallel efforts and true collaboration.

The final section of Leadership Is Half the Story is the authors’ practical gift to readers: a toolkit for turning theory into transformation. Whether you’re developing yourself, your team, or your organization, the Hurwitzes provide structured methods to diagnose problems, apply principles, and build lasting partnerships.

Personal Development

Their Partnership Skills Assessment helps you identify your strengths and growth areas across leadership and followership skills. It’s not a personality test but a situational mirror—where are you excelling now, and where do you need to adapt? Because every relationship and context differs, you must regularly re-evaluate and recalibrate. Growth, they emphasize, is relational, not individual.

Team Development

For teams, the GP Model becomes a diagnostic tool. If decisions stall, examine whether roles are clear (Principle 1), frames are explicit (Principle 2), connection is balanced (Principle 3), positivity outweighs criticism (Principle 4), and goals are truly shared (Principle 5). The Engagement Exercise then helps teams co-design their ideal environment, mapping what energizes them and what drains them. This transforms engagement from a managerial agenda into a shared responsibility.

Organizational Development

At the macro level, the Hurwitzes urge organizations to institutionalize followership. Rewrite competencies to include followership behaviors—e.g., creativity as both “Generate vision” (leadership) and “Build on others’ ideas” (followership). Add followership to onboarding, talent programs, and feedback systems. Leadership training alone is half an investment; developing followers completes it.

Ultimately, the book’s promise is simple but revolutionary: when everyone in an organization learns to both lead and follow well, work becomes not a power struggle but a partnership. The result is agility, innovation, and joy—work that, quite literally, generates more than the sum of its parts.