followership: what is it and why do people follow?

FOLLOWERSHIP: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW?

FOLLOWERSHIP: WHAT IS IT AND WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW?

EDITED BY

LAURENT M. LAPIERRE Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada

MELISSA K. CARSTEN College of Business Administration, Winthrop University, USA

United Kingdom • North America • Japan India • Malaysia • China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2014 Copyright r 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78350-515-9

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

Contents

List of Contributors

vii

Introduction and Book Overview

ix

PART 1: WHAT IS FOLLOWERSHIP? 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership: The Need for an Expanded View of Followers and the Follower Role Melissa K. Carsten, Peter Harms and Mary Uhl-Bien

3

Exploring the “Flip Side” of the Coin: Do Authentic Leaders Need Authentic Followers? Rhonda K. Rodgers and Michelle C. Bligh

27

A New Conceptual Framework for Authentic Followership Deanna de Zilwa

47

The Fluid Nature of Follower and Leader Roles Susan D. Baker, Susan A. Stites-Doe, Christopher J. Mathis and William E. Rosenbach

73

Comparing Followers and Subordinates: Accounting for the Effects of Organizational Hierarchy Kim T. Hinrichs and Andrew T. Hinrichs

89

PART 2: WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW? 6.

Why Do People Follow? Micha Popper

109

vi

Contents

7.

Being Both Leaders and Followers: Advancing a Model of Leader and Follower Role Switching Thomas Sy and Tara McCoy

121

Leading to Develop Truly Effective Followers Kimberly S. Jaussi and Amy E. Randel

141

Why and How Should Subordinates Follow Their Managers? Laurent M. Lapierre

157

8.

9.

About the Editors

171

About the Authors

173


Susan D. Baker

Earl G. Graves School of Business and Management, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Michelle C. Bligh

Drucker-Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

Melissa K. Carsten

College of Business Administration,Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC, USA

Deanna de Zilwa

School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, Australia

Peter Harms

College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

Andrew T. Hinrichs

Department of Management, Operations, and Marketing, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA, USA

Kim T. Hinrichs

Department of Management, College of Business, California State University, Chico, Chico, CA, USA

Kimberly S. Jaussi

School of Management, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA

Laurent M. Lapierre

Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Christopher J. Mathis

Earl G. Graves School of Business and Management, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Tara McCoy

Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA

viii


Micha Popper

Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel

Amy E. Randel

Department of Management, College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA

Rhonda K. Rodgers

Division of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA

William E. Rosenbach

Rosenbach & Associates, Inc., Gettysburg, PA, USA

Susan A. Stites-Doe

College at Brockport, State University of New York, Brockport, NY, USA

Thomas Sy

Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA

Mary Uhl-Bien

College of Business Administration, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA


There is a growing consensus in the leadership literature that the study of followers and followership has been severely underrepresented (Baker, 2007; Bligh, 2011; Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Collinson, 2006; Sy, 2010; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Leadership theory and practice have traditionally favored the “leader” in discussions of how leadership can advance organizational objectives (Hollander, 2008). For over a century, scholars have sought to understand the personal characteristics and behaviors of leaders, how they influence and inspire followers, and how their vision of the future may advance positive change in organizations (Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). In this effort, followers have been viewed as “recipients or moderators of the leader’s influence, and as vehicles for the actualization of the leader’s vision, mission, or goals” (Shamir, 2007, p. x). Indeed, followers are traditionally seen as those who concede to the leader’s directives, and very few scholars have ventured to examine how followers might serve as partners, co-contributors, or active participants in the leadership process (Hollander, 1992, 1993). Yet, we know that leadership is a process of mutual influence (Greene, 1975; Sims & Manz, 1984), where leaders and followers work together to advance common objectives (Rost, 1991). As noted by Shamir (2007, p. xix), “leadership emerges in the interactions between leaders and followers.” Thus, without followers, leadership would not materialize and the benefits of leadership would not be realized by the organization. Followers are an essential part of the leadership equation, and there is a pervasive need to better understand who followers are, how they define and enact their role, and the ways in which followers may impact leaders and the leadership process. The purpose of this book is to bring followers to the forefront of the leadership process, by examining who the followers are, and how and why they follow. Rather than treating followers as a byproduct of leadership, our book sheds light on the unique characteristics of followers, and what followers do to impact leadership and organizational outcomes. For example, given that followers and followership is a newly emerging field of study, there are many questions that must be answered and a strong need for theoretical foundations that will guide research and practice in this area. Our book explores emerging paradigms of followership and helps to answer the questions: “What is followership” and “Why do people follow.” Addressing these questions will help researchers, practitioners, and educators better understand what it means to be a follower, and highlights the importance of

x


understanding followers as individuals with unique characteristics, styles, and perceptions that distinctively impact leaders and the leadership process.

Overview of Chapters The first part of our book seeks to define what followership is. In this section, our contributors explore how the enactment of followership has been defined throughout history, and provide new conceptualizations of followership, including authentic followership, fluid followership, and followership without dependence on a leader. These followership paradigms recast followers from those who silently observe and obey leaders to those who work in partnership with leaders to influence organizational goals. Chapter 1, written by Melissa K. Carsten, Peter Harms, and Mary Uhl-Bien, explores historical accounts of followership and examines the negative connotation that has been associated with the word “follower.” The authors draw from evolutionary, sociological, and psychological sciences to examine how followership has been defined in the past, and how historical definitions have inadvertently produced a negative association with the word “follower.” This chapter also reviews several notable examples of nonfollowership throughout history, and challenges the traditional view that all followers are blindly obedient and passive. The chapter concludes with a focus on how to redefine “followership” for the Management literature and why organizations are more reliant on followers now than in the past. The authors also present recommendations for how we can dilute the negative connotation associated with the word “follower” and recast the follower role in a more favorable and productive light. Chapter 2, written by Rhonda K. Rodgers and Michelle C. Bligh, draws from work on Authentic Leadership to present a new theoretical perspective on Authentic Followers — Individuals who maintain an internalized moral perspective, heightened levels of self-awareness and self-regulation, and are capable of developing an authentic relationship with the leader. The chapter explores characteristics of authentic followers, how leader and follower roles are fluid and interchangeable, and how authenticity is required by both leaders and followers to advance organizational objectives. In addition, the authors discuss how authentic followers enact their role, and the positive effects that such followers can have on leaders and organizations. Chapter 3, written by Deanna de Zilwa, also addresses authentic followership by proposing a new conceptual framework for defining and studying authentic followers. de Zilwa defines authentic followership as a style of followership that involves truth, integrity, identity with the organization, and a willingness to serve the interests of the organization over those of the individual follower. This new framework is comprised of three sets of components: The first component refers to individual attributes of followers, the second relates to interactions between followers, leaders and the firm, and the third relates to the context required for authentic followership to flourish in organizations. The chapter also discusses how


xi

authentic followership is expected to benefit both the leader and the organization, and identifies the boundaries of the conceptual framework. In addition, this chapter discusses under what conditions, or in which types of firms, authentic followership would not be feasible, relevant, or useful. Chapter 4, written by Susan D. Baker, Susan A. Stites-Doe, Christopher J. Mathis, and William E. Rosenbach, explores how variations in follower behavior contribute to the leader!follower relationship in organizations. Specifically, they apply Rosenbach, Pittman, and Potter III’s (1996) model of followership to examine how certain behaviors influence a follower’s ability to perform tasks and build relationships. In each section, the authors provide propositions that can be used to guide future research on follower behavior, and to better understand how follower behavior influences the relationship between leaders and followers, as well as the follower’s likelihood of emerging as a leader. Chapter 5, written by Kim T. Hinrichs and Andrew T. Hinrichs, examines the concept of followership as it relates to hierarchical positions in organizations. The authors contend that followership is different from subordination, and that deference to a leader (i.e., followership) may occur either within or outside of hierarchical relationships. Within hierarchical structures, followership typically is defined by a lack of power, status, and authority that can put followers in a “onedown” position. This position is thought to erode follower dignity and put a strain on followers’ well-being. The authors discuss the effects of hierarchical structures on followers and provide recommendations for how followers can be defined and studied in organizations. The second part of the book explores the question: “why do people follow?” In this section, our contributors describe various factors explaining why people follow a leader, including factors rooted in traditional psychological literatures (e.g., psychoanalytic, social psychological), those predicting individuals’ inclination or capacity to switch between follower and leader roles, those relating to specific organizational practices, and finally those stemming from subordinates’ motivation to best support their manager’s leadership decision-making. Chapter 6, written by Micha Popper, addresses the reasons why followers need leaders, and the origins of followership from psychoanalytic, cognitive, and social psychological approaches. The author explores reasons why human beings “follow” leaders and the benefits that are reaped by submitting to the intellect, identity, and teachings of others. The chapter concludes with directions for future research that explores followership in organizations, and the importance of factors such as context, leader!follower distance, and psychological heuristics in determining why people follow leaders. Chapter 7, written by Thomas Sy and Tara McCoy, addresses the notion that individuals vary in their propensity to switch between follower and leader roles. This intra-personal process, which the authors label as “leader!follower switching” (LFS), is thought to manifest itself in four different LFS styles, which differ in the degree of enactment of each role. The chapter concludes by providing a research agenda for investigating the measurement of LFS, as well as its antecedents and outcomes.

xii


Chapter 8, contributed by Kimberly S. Jaussi and Amy E. Randel, suggests practices that organizations can use to develop employees into the most “effective” type of followers, as conceptualized in Kelley’s (1988) seminal follower typology. The authors build upon the transformational model of leadership to present specific ways with which leaders can develop the identity and behaviors of effective followers. Finally, Chapter 9, written by Laurent M. Lapierre, begins by explaining why subordinates should follow their manager. Lapierre then addresses salient contextual factors that employees may use as cues for deciding which style of followership would best support their manager’s leadership. Specifically, to the extent that a subordinate wishes to support the manager’s leadership decision-making, the author argues that the subordinate should consider specific situational factors when determining whether proactive followership (i.e., getting involved in the leadership decision-making process) or passive followership (i.e., accepting the leader’s decision without question) would be of most value. Four situational factors are addressed, including (1) the subordinate’s expertise, (2) the manager’s display of trust in the subordinate, (3) the urgency with which the leadership decision must be made, and (4) whether the leadership decision, once made, can realistically be changed. The chapters outlined above exemplify, for both researchers and practitioners, the importance of understanding the important role that followers play in the leadership process. These chapters offer a strong foundation on which followership theory can be built and investigated. Although there continues to be a strong need to develop a better understanding of what followership is and why people follow, this book presents an important introduction to the importance of followers and the need for further exploration of followership in organizations.

References Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50!60. Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centred approaches. In A. Bryman, K. Grint, B. Jackson, M. Uhl-Bien, & D. Collinson (Eds.), The sage handbook of Leadership (pp. 1180!1216). London, UK: Sage. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543!562. Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179!189. Greene, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 187!193. Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43!54. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & A. Roya (Eds.), Leadership theory and practice: Perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


xiii

Hollander, E. P. (2008). On the central role of leadership processes. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 35(1), 39!52. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 141–148. Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., & Potter III, E. H. (2012). What makes a follower? In W. E. Rosenbach, R. L. Taylor & M. A. Youndt (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (7th ed., pp. 77–87). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. London, UK: Praeger. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership. A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix!xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Sims, H. P., & Manz, C. C. (1984). Observing leader behavior: Toward reciprocal determinism in leadership theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(2), 222!232. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73!84. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83!104. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 147!197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

PART 1: WHAT IS FOLLOWERSHIP?

Chapter 1

Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership: The Need for an Expanded View of Followers and the Follower Role Melissa K. Carsten, Peter Harms and Mary Uhl-Bien

Abstract Purpose ! The purpose of this chapter is to explore historical perspectives on the meaning of followership and to advance a more modern view of organizational followership and the importance of the follower role. Design/methodology/approach ! This chapter reviews anthropological, sociological, and psychological perspectives on the meaning of followership to understand how followership has been conceptualized in the past. We then review literature about organizational followership and examine the various role orientations that followers may adopt while working with leaders. Findings ! Our literature review suggests that followers are historically portrayed as either blindly and passively obedient, or defiant and insubordinate. Current literature on followership helps to broaden these early definitions by demonstrating that followers may also be proactive partners in the leadership process, and that these proactive forms of followership may advance organizational objectives. Practical implications ! The literature on followership provides best practices that organizations can adopt to cultivate proactive, engaged followers who work in concert with leaders to advance the mission of the organization. Our review highlights the important characteristics and behaviors of followers that help to achieve this goal. Originality/value ! Followership is an emerging field and there is much more that needs to be understood about who followers are, how they perceive their

Followership: What Is It and Why Do People Follow? Copyright r 2014 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISBN: 978-1-78350-515-9

4

Melissa K. Carsten et al. role in the leadership process, and the ways that they advance both leadership and organizational objectives. Keywords: Follower; followership; follower-centered; leadership; role orientation

In almost 150 years of leadership research, few scholars have attempted to really define and understand the concept of followership (Bligh, 2011; Collinson, 2006; Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). This is not to say that followers have not been mentioned in leadership research. To the contrary, most writings about leadership have discussed followers in terms of what leaders can do to influence, inspire, and direct followers to a desired future goal (Yukl, 2010; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992). In the leadership literature, however, followers have remained undefined, with very few researchers spending time or energy explaining who followers are or how they work with leaders to advance common objectives (Collinson, 2006; Hollander, 1993). One might even say that the concept of followership has gained a negative connotation as followers are often considered to be individuals who lack the capability to lead (Hoption, Christie, & Barling, 2012). This negative connotation is found in common quotes or sayings such as “Never Follow.” The negativity surrounding the word follower has been amplified by troubling examples of blind, unthinking followers engaging in disturbing behaviors because they were told to do so by their leaders (i.e., Nazi Germany, The Peoples Temple). But we know that despite the fact that many followers do indeed follow in a blindly obedient manner (see Blass, 2009 for a review), there are just many others who engage with leaders in a constructive way to advance the objectives and goals of the group (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010). Indeed, in today’s fast paced and increasingly competitive business environment, the role of followers is becoming more important than ever as leaders depend on followers to offer insight, ideas, new strategies, or to challenge the status quo (Bennis, 2000; Latour & Rast, 2004). In this chapter, we argue that the time come for us to reconsider what we mean when we say “followership.” What is implied by the quote above, and echoed by many other scholars, is that not all followers “follow” in the traditional sense of the term (Chaleff, 1995; Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Kelley, 1992; Shamir, 2007). Yet history holds centuries of examples not only of blindly passive followers but also of followers who courageously question leaders and challenge the status quo. Despite this, the view that followers are weak, gullible, and desperate for leadership is still endorsed (Sy, 2010). These views originated in evolutionary perspectives of leadership and followership, and were reinforced in major theoretical perspectives on leadership and followership from sociology and psychology. They now pervade the leadership literature to the detriment of scholarship and practice. The result is an incomplete view of leadership and a widespread misunderstanding of the role of followers and followership in the leadership process. The purpose of this chapter is to trace the source of this misunderstanding by providing a historical perspective on the development of followership perceptions

Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership

5

and then offer a modern view grounded in a broader treatment of followership and the follower role. We begin by exploring several prominent examples of followership throughout history, examining both the passive and active forms of followership displayed in these accounts. We review three perspectives of leadership in the academic literature (i.e., evolutionary, sociological, and psychological) to show how they have largely painted followership in a negative light. Although each of these perspectives carries some, albeit less emphasized, accounts of a more positive view of followership, our goal is to look at how the earliest explanations of leadership have somehow degraded followership. We then offer a modern organizational perspective and show how role theory can provide a more holistic understanding of the different forms that followership may take. Finally, we provide directions for future research and practice around followership, and discuss why followership is so important to the growth and success of modern organizations.

1.1.

Images of Followers throughout History

Images of followership throughout history have been of individuals and groups who dutifully comply with the orders of their leaders. While there are some examples of followers that defy these traditional conceptualizations, in many cases, individuals who dared to challenge their leaders or overtly revolt, suffered greatly for doing so. Although the number of historical illustrations of followership is too large to recount here, we choose several examples that highlight obedient forms of followership, and several that examine the consequences individuals face when they chose to object.

1.1.1.

Accounts of Followership from Homer’s Iliad

It could be said that the first book of western literature, Homer’s Iliad, is all about leader!follower dynamics. A telling reflection of how the ancient Greeks perceived the nature of leader!follower relations comes from the second book of the Iliad when the Greeks meet in council to decide whether to keep fighting or leave Troy after nine years of inconclusive combat. Although the entire army is present, it is generally left to the nobles to do the talking and make the difficult decisions. One exception to this is an ordinary soldier named Thersites. Described by Homer as the ugliest man in the army with a lame foot, a hunched back, and a pointy head, Thersites was always willing to quarrel with princes. As Agamemnon tries to rally the troops for one last push, Thersites gets up to call into question why the poor soldiers of the Greek army should continue to fight and die to enrich their leaders. He then calls for the rank and file to leave their king to his possessions, sitting on the beach while they all return home. Sensing an impending rebellion, Odysseus moves quickly toward him, states that he has no right to stand up to his leaders, and declares him to be the worst man in the army. Odysseus then strikes him with a scepter and warns him that if he ever speaks out against the leaders again, he will strip Thersites naked, beat him, and chase him back to the ships.

6

Melissa K. Carsten et al.

Although intended as a simple and somewhat comical way of demonstrating that morale was low in Greek army, the story more importantly reflects not only the normative beliefs about leadership of the time (i.e., that leaders were imbued with special powers and privileges from the gods and were meant to be followed), but also that the Greeks themselves had begun questioning dominant leadership values. Thersites, in a sense, is the first “follower” in history to overtly object to a leader’s directive and advocate a revolt against the abuses of his leaders and the injustices prevalent in his organization. While not a “follower” in the traditional sense, Thersites demonstrated critical, independent thinking, and like many a whistle-blowers, he ultimately suffered for doing so.

1.1.2.

Feudal Japan

Perhaps no story better illustrates traditional conceptions of followership than does the Chushingura, the story of the 47 ronin in ancient Japan. In this story, a local lord named Asano is taunted and insulted by a high-ranking government official. Asano attempts to retaliate by drawing his dagger and striking at the official, but in doing so commits a capital crime and is ordered to commit ritual suicide. Asano’s lands were seized and the samurai who served him were rendered ronin (leaderless). Of Asano’s approximately 300 followers, 47 swore to avenge their fallen master. Because the Shogun had ordered that revenge was prohibited and because they were under surveillance by government agents, the ronin plotted to act as if they had acquiesced to their orders, and wait to retaliate until the government official responsible for their master’s death let his guard down. In order to create a convincing illusion that he was no longer a threat, the leader of the ronin, Oishi, became a drunkard, divorced his wife, and began frequenting prostitutes. Others took jobs as laborers, farmers, and merchants. After two years, they secretly reassembled and attacked the dwelling of their target, achieving revenge by taking his head and returning it to the grave of their master. Although widely celebrated for their dedication to the Bushido code of honor, they were nonetheless ordered to commit suicide for breaking the law and were buried with their master. Although it is tempting to read this story and interpret it as blind obedience to a leader, this explanation is perhaps an oversimplification. Of Asano’s followers, it could be said that the most passive followers were the ones who accepted their leader’s death and complied with the law without taking action. Among those who acted, it is interesting to note that they did not blindly obey to either their leader or their code of honor. The Bushido code of honor compelled them to attack their enemy immediately, irrespective of their chances for success. The 47 ronin sacrificed their honor, planned a path that would maximize their opportunity for success, and patiently waited to execute it. In other words, they acted in the best interest of their master without the benefit of his leadership, without concern for their own well-being, and in direct defiance of a higher authority whose orders they believed were wrong.

Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership 1.1.3.

7

Nazi Germany

Perhaps the most famous example of the disastrous effects of blind obedience to authority is that of Nazi German in the 1940s. Although Hitler is often cited as the villain of this time, in reality, it took a coordinated effort of hundreds of followers to implement Hitler’s “final solution.” Hitler’s followers were primarily SS members who blindly adopted Hitler’s ideology and hatred of “non-Arian” people. They so strongly believed in Hitler’s vision that they followed his orders as well as the orders of other top-ranking SS members such as Adolf Eichmanm (the primary organizer of the Holocaust). In many ways, we could say that Hitler’s leadership was “made” in the actions of his followers who committed monstrous acts, including the execution of millions of Jewish and other people and human torture and experimentation, on the orders of their leaders. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram (1965, 1974) conducted several experimental studies to better understand the lengths that someone would go to in an effort to obey the commands of authority figures. The Milgram studies found that approximately 70% of subjects in their experiments would obey the commands of authority figures, even when those commands inflicted noticeable injury and harm to others. When asked why they continued to obey when they knew that they were hurting others, study participants said that they were just “following orders.” When asked who was responsible for the pain that resulted from the electric shocks, the subjects stated that it was the experimenter (the person giving the orders) rather than them personally (the ones carrying out the orders), because the experimenter was the “expert” and had greater knowledge about the purpose of the study. Follow-up research calls this phenomenon “displacement of responsibility” — when someone finds themselves blameless for unethical acts because they are a “follower” (Bandura, 1999). Although the Milgram experiments are typically referenced when people talk about the lengths to which an individual will go in obeying authority, one of the interesting aspects of this research is the finding that approximately 30% of Milgram’s participants did not follow these orders. Even in Nazi Germany, one can find accounts of individuals who risked their lives and those of their families in order to shelter Jews and other targeted groups from death. In addition, there were notable examples of noncompliance within the highest ranks of Nazi leadership. For example, Albert Speer, known as the architect of the Third Reich, frequently disagreed with Hitler and even went so far as to actively undermine the war effort in order to preserve lives toward the end of the war.

1.1.4.

Jim Jones and the People’s Temple

Another example involves the highly publicized mass suicide of the followers of Jim Jones and The People’s Temple. Jim Jones, a highly successful pastor in the 1970s, grew his congregation to over 1000 people and convinced them to relocate to a compound in Guyana, which he called Jonestown. Several years after relocating,

8


and after several deflectors left the compound against Jones’ wishes, he successfully convinced over 900 people to drink cyanide-laced Kool-Aid and commit mass suicide (Reiterman & Jacobs, 1982). Men, women, and children who had followed Jones’ teachings and unquestioningly accepted his ideology came to see him as a “god.” During their time in Guyana, Jones held what he called “loyalty sessions” to test the dedication of his followers. One such follower, Deborah Layton Blakey (1978) recounts one of these loyalty sessions in an affidavit: Everyone, including the children, was told to line up. As we passed through the line, we were given a small glass of red liquid to drink. We were told that the liquid contained poison and that we would die within 45 minutes. We all did as we were told. When the time came when we should have dropped dead, Rev. Jones explained that the poison was not real and that we had just been through a loyalty test. He warned us that the time was not far off when it would become necessary for us to die by our own hands. According to transcripts of tape recorded sessions in Jonestown, these types of activities were routine and reassured Jones that his followers would do anything he asked. Although these stories are common among Jonestown survivors, several of Jones’ followers did deflect from the community, or challenged his directives in an overt manner. For example, in the final hours leading up to the suicide, several Temple members pushed back on Jones’ master plan and, in some cases, hid under buildings or sent their children into the jungle to escape the directives of their leader. These accounts of followership lean heavily toward conceptualizing followers as blindly obedient. However, in each case there were also examples of individuals who thought critically about the directives of their leaders and chose to not follow destructive orders. From these examples, we can create two broad categories of followers: Those who blindly obey and those who do not. Among those who do not blindly follow, it is possible that some overtly revolt against their leaders (as noted in the examples above), and others work in partnership with their leaders to devise a more effective solution to problems or more appropriate courses of action. These more “active” followers are needed in today’s organizations to ensure that leaders are making sound, ethical decisions that benefit the common mission (rather than their own selfish agendas). Indeed, recent research suggests that organizations may benefit when followers actively engage with their leaders (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007). Yet, not all followers assume such an active role. In a qualitative study on individual constructions of the follower role, Carsten et al. found wide variation in the way that followership is perceived, defined, and enacted in organizations (2010). While some followers do ascribe to a more passive and highly deferent role definition, there are many followers who are relatively less deferent, more active and engaged, and contribute to the leadership process. Shamir (2007) calls these more active followers “co-producers of leadership” because they work with leaders,


9

through a process of mutual influence and engagement, to affect the leader’s decisions, perceptions, and courses of action. Yet, there are fewer historical accounts of these “active” followers, and we know little about how they interact with leaders. In the sections below we explore these variations in followership by examining research on follower role orientations — the way the followers define and enact their roles in relation to organizational leaders. But first we review the treatment of followers and followership in the academic literature.

1.2.

Academic Treatments of Followership

While the history books are filled with examples of great leaders who forged new directions for tribes, nations, religious groups, and social movements, in the academic discussions of great leaders much less attention has been paid to those who follow. As a result, we have come to define leaders as individuals with extraordinary capabilities and followers as “those who lack the capability to be leaders.” We have made sweeping assumptions (some more grounded than others) that if leaders are strong, wise, brave, visionary and articulate, then followers are not (Hirschhorn, 1990). Indeed, instead of providing a definition of who followers are and how they work with or support leaders, they have instead been defined through the qualities and characteristics that they lack. We can see this in the various academic perspectives that have contributed to this notion that followers are those who simply cannot lead. 1.2.1.

The Evolutionary Perspective

The study of evolution examines the ways in which humans and other species have evolved and changed over the centuries, and how individuals within a species have managed to survive and thrive. In an effort to explain why status hierarchies are ubiquitous in human civilizations, evolutionary thinkers inevitably discuss how the concepts of leadership and followership are important to the growth and diversity of a species (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). According to Van Vugt (2006, p. 355), every species is confronted with “adaptive problems [that revolve] around deciding what to do and when and where to do it.” Researchers have demonstrated that leadership plays an important role in addressing these problems of adaptation and survival (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Some of the earliest theories of evolution suggest that tribes which have greater coordination, cooperation, and innovative thinking would thrive while other tribes perished (i.e., survival of the fittest) (Darwin, 1871). These efforts of coordination, cooperation, and decision making require capable leaders who forge new directions, and dutiful followers who defer to the leader’s instructions (Van Vugt et al., 2008). There are number of evolutionary theories which address the emergence of leadership and followership in early hominid tribes. For example, researchers have examined the theory of social dominance (i.e., that authoritarian people emerge as

10


leaders) as a means of explaining how leadership emerges. Others suggest that individuals who are more intelligent, who take initiative, and who are better at solving problems naturally emerge as leaders while those who lack such characteristics would be relegated to the followers. According to Van Vugt (2006), while both of these theories hold weight in explaining the earliest forms of leadership, when you consider the needs of coordination and adaptation as well as the benefits of sticking with a group, it appears that individuals in ancient tribes experienced benefits from being both leaders and followers. Research suggests that the human species is naturally less hierarchical in group composition, when compared to other primates (Nicholson, 2000). As a result, early humans tended to shy away from authoritarian rule and dictators who lead autocratically (Boehm, 1993; Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939). Instead, Van Vugt (2006) suggests that the emergence of leadership and followership can be explained by evolutionary game theory (Maynard-Smith, 1982) where, in order for the tribe to be successful, one person would have to choose to lead while others choose to follow. If all individuals choose leadership or followership, the tribe will be ineffective in solving its problems of coordination and adaptation. Thus, individuals must choose, depending on the situation and the problem to be solved, who would serve as the leader and who would serve as followers. Under this theory, those who are socially accepted as leaders may be superior in their ability to identify opportunities or threats in the environment and be the first to propose solutions. They may also emerge because they are able to resolve conflict either within the group or between groups. Since early tribes were thought to be in constant conflict with other tribes over resources, it would benefit the tribe to have someone who was patient, considerate, cooperative, and maintained a high degree to social intelligence. Individuals with a high level of competence and proven ability to accomplish goals (e.g., successful migration or hunting expeditions) were also likely to emerge as leaders. Followers, on the other hand, were the members of the tribe who did not excel in these functions (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Tribe members who were less capable, intelligent, or competent would benefit by following a leader who could serve the group well and ensure survival. Such leaders could lead them to food and water sources, solve problems within the group, and maintain peace with competing tribes. Thus, the origins of followership from an evolutionary perspective clearly point to a differentiation between what leaders can do and what followers cannot do. According to Van Vugt (2006), these definitions and conceptualizations of leadership and followership have become so ingrained in our cognition and social structures over thousands of years of evolution that we implicitly define leaders as more capable, intelligent, proactive and effective, and followers as dependent on leaders for survival and prosperity. It has also created implicit expectations that leaders should be responsible for making the tough decisions and solving problems, with followers having little to offer in this endeavor (Meindl, 1998; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). As a result, the beliefs, assumptions, and definitions of followers as passive, deferent and subordinate are so well etched in our belief system that many of us aren’t even aware they exist (Lord, 1985).


11

Such schemas for followership are rooted in our earliest experiences as humans, and continually reinforced through socialization. As our societies have become more complex, however, and the problems associated with survival and prosperity have fundamentally changed, our thinking about followers and followership has not. For example, it is clear from some of the earliest management theories that our definitions of leaders (i.e., managers) and followers (i.e., subordinates) still place emphasis on the superiority of leaders and the inferiority of followers (Heckscher, 1994). Although this might have originated in evolutionary perspectives, it is clearly reinforced in sociological and psychological treatments of followers and followership.

1.2.2.

The Sociological Perspective

Sociology examines human social behavior, social structures and institutions, and social action. It is concerned with understanding how societies, social structures, organizations, and groups influence behavior on a collective level. Some of the earliest management theories were advanced by sociologists such as Karl Marx (McLellan, 1973) who believed that an organization’s managers and owners (i.e., those at the top of the organization) should maintain full power and authority, and that workers (i.e., those at the bottom of the organization) should simply follow orders. The perspectives of Karl Marx became the foundation for theories about managing and organizing during the industrial revolution, and had a major influence on how leaders (i.e., managers) and followers (i.e., subordinates) were defined and treated. The spark of the industrial revolution in the late 1700s brought an entirely new way of thinking about work and the relationship between society, economy, capitalism, and organizations (Child, 1967). Up to this point major societies had thrived on agriculture and craft trades, focused on private owners selling or trading their products in small scale markets. The major innovation in the industrial revolution was the advent of the factory, which brought thousands of employees under a single roof, working together in unison to generate products in a manufacturing environment. During this time, the ways in which work was accomplished changed in a fundamental way. Factory owners, foreman, and managers were assumed to capitalize on workers who labored in poor conditions for many hours each week (Volti, 2008). As factory work evolved and relations became strained between managers and workers, major sociological philosophies regarding how to organize began to emerge. One of the earliest and most prevalent organizational philosophies of the time was advanced by Karl Marx who believed that that the industrial economy and society was a zero-sum game where the benefits reaped by one party are the direct outcome of losses of another (McLellan, 1973). In the manufacturing environment, managers, foreman, and owners were seen as the ones who benefit and the workers as the ones who lose. As a result, managers reaped power, status, and superiority from subordinates (followers) who were uneducated, ineffectual, and lacking

12


initiative. These sociological perspectives led to management practices in which workers felt mistreated, leading many to resort to engaging in strikes, violence, and sabotage, or simply doing as little as possible. In this way, the low expectations of managers regarding the intellect and initiative of subordinates became a selffulfilling prophecy in which managers subordinated employees, and employees responded by providing less effort, initiative, and showing very little commitment. Building from the early philosophies of sociologists like Marx, Fredrick Taylor (an engineer by trade) advanced his theory of Scientific Management in the late 1800s (Taylor, 1911). The major impetus behind the work of Taylor was to improve the efficiency of workers to ensure that they were performing to their highest potential for the benefit of the factory owners. In an effort to improve efficiency of workers, Taylor developed the Time and Motion studies with the goal of identifying the optimal number of movements that workers should perform for maximum output and profit. Taylor held the belief that workers were lazy, uneducated, and unskilled, and thus should be strictly managed and supervised. In his writings on scientific management, Taylor describes a conversation he had with a low-wage worker in an effort to motivate him to work harder and produce greater outputs by stressing the importance of being a dutiful follower: … you will do exactly as this man tells you … from morning to night. And what’s more, no back talk. Do you understand that? When this man tells you to walk, you walk; when he tells you to sit down, you sit down, and you don’t talk back to him. (Volti, 2008, p. 30) This strong sentiment of obedience — even at the expense of dignity and wellbeing — was the predominant worldview of workers at the time. According to Brown (1954), this belief was so engrained in society and so permeated the early thinking of management and leadership scholars alike that it led to the foundation for what we now refer to as Theory X management: the belief that workers are inherently lazy, that they find work distasteful, and that they are motivated solely through money (Brown, 1954). Managers holding a Theory X view believe that the goal of the worker is to exert as little effort as possible in an attempt to earn a living wage and avoid discomfort (Brown, 1954). For example, workers did not engage in work out of benevolence, or care or concern for the product or company; they worked for a wage, feeling no additional ties to the company. This notion assumes that man is a machine: “a mechanism with a shadowy entity of a mind attached to it” (Brown, 1954, p. 16). The mind and well-being of the worker was not of concern to the employer. The advances of the industrial revolution placed new emphasis on managers (leaders) and further subordination of workers (followers) into one-down positions. Major paradigms such as scientific management and Theory X set the precedent for leaders being considered the center of leadership research and followers playing a peripheral role, at best (Meindl, 1995). This subordination of followership was then solidified in psychological views of leadership, which further subjugated followership through its emphasis on great man and heroic views of leadership.

Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership 1.2.3.

13

The Psychological Perspective

The psychological sciences examine human behavior at the individual and group level of analysis, focusing on how individual perceptions, traits, motives, cognitions, and attributions affect behavior. Among the many psychological paradigms that exist, the one that has had an important impact on the way we understand leadership (and followership) is trait theory. Trait theories of leadership explore the personal characteristics that distinguish leaders from non-leaders or those that make someone an effective leader (Bass & Bass, 2008). Trait theories of leadership emerged out of the study of the “Great Man” theory, which posits that leadership traits can be determined by exploring extraordinary leaders throughout history (Carlyle, 1888). This model assumes that leaders are born, not made, and that when one lacks the characteristics needed to be a great leader they are relegated to the ranks of follower. In the mid-1800s, scholars such as Thomas Carlyle (1888) and William James (1897) advanced the idea that history should be understood by examining the conquests of “Great Men” — heroes who had a major impact on society through their superior intelligence, creativity, and self-confidence. From this perspective, influential political, social, and religious leaders were thought to possess personal characteristics that made them superior to others. These personal characteristics were also considered to be inherent (most prevalent in the upper class) and stable across the lifespan — that is, they could not be developed (Galton, 1883/2012). Characteristics that set leaders apart from followers were considered to include drive, general cognitive ability, and high levels of persistence and motivation (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). According to Carlyle, the great men of history should be venerated and celebrated — and although a person lacking great qualities could never be an influential leader, one might learn about the leadership qualities that make someone effective by studying these great figures. The “Great Man” theory garnered so much enthusiasm that many early psychologists modeled their leadership trait theories after Carlyle’s writings. While it did not take long for research to dispute the idea that great leaders were born and not made (i.e., see Stogdill, 1948), the notion of the great man being the leader inadvertently cast followers as commoners who lacked the personal characteristics to do anything but obey. Although the early trait theories in psychology, as well as the “Great Man” theory, fail to comment on the traits or characteristics inherent in followers, we can conclude from their writings that they considered “non-leaders” as those lacking in the qualities and characteristics that make leaders effective. These early psychological theories would consider followers to have unexceptional intelligence, drive and persistence, minimal ability to solve problems, and the inability to exude selfconfidence or influence another person’s behavior. They would also view followers as non-leaders by nature, meaning that they would never have the capability or potential to demonstrate leadership. Such a notion reduces followers to “inferior people” who could never have the ability to influence performance, change, or positively affect leadership. Followers are depicted as weak, ineffectual individuals who rely on leaders to coordinate daily operations.

14


1.2.4.

Summary

The historical perspectives of followership described above have all contributed (for better or worse) to our implicit definition of what it means to be a follower and how followers differ from leaders. Although there are several scholars who, throughout time, have challenged the predominant view that leaders are superior to followers (i.e., see writings by Mary Parker Follett, 1927, 1949), the limited theory and research on who followers are, what they do to support or detract from leadership, and how they impact leaders and organizations has left us with little understanding of anything other than the historical perception that followers are “non-leaders.” Despite the many examples throughout history demonstrating that followers may disobey or challenge a leader’s orders, the prominent view of followers is largely passive and deferent. To move beyond this limited view we need to think more broadly about followers and the ways in which they enact their roles in relation to leaders.

1.3.

Followership for a New Era: Redefining the Follower Role

As modern organizations have entered the knowledge era, the line between those who labor and those who manage the labor has become increasingly blurred (Bennis, 2000). Today’s knowledge-based organizations look very different from those that emerged during the industrial revolution, and the dynamic nature of organizational environments requires rapid change to remain competitive (Lawler & Galbraith, 1994). The new corporate environment thrives on innovation and competition, and followers who are passive, deferent, unskilled, and expected to silently follow are likely to stifle an organization’s progress. For example, in his article titled, “The End of Leadership,” Warren Bennis (2000) states: “A shrinking world in which technological and political complexity increase at an accelerating rate offers fewer and fewer arenas in which individual action, TOPdown leadership, suffices” (p. 72). In defining what followership means in this new era, we must develop perspectives of followership that go beyond views of followers as individuals who lack personal traits and characteristics associated with great leaders. Although traits and personal characteristics undoubtedly play a role in how followers follow, often followers are highly intelligent, capable, innovative individuals who simply do not occupy a managerial position in the hierarchy. In these cases, followership is not a deficient characteristic but rather a different kind of role, and one that is critical to the effective performance of leadership. From this perspective we can see followership as the behaviors one engages in while interacting with leaders in an effort to meet organizational objectives. How one chooses to enact a follower role, in the process of working with leaders, is dependent on both their personal characteristics as well as their beliefs about leadership, followership, and organizational structure (Carsten et al., 2010).


15

The beliefs one holds about the responsibilities associated with organizational roles, as well as the ways in which such roles should be enacted, is referred to as role orientation (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). In the sections below, we review several role orientations that followers may adopt in organizations and explain how these role orientations are expected to impact both follower behavior and leadership outcomes. 1.3.1.

Follower Role Orientations

The role-based nature of organizational behavior has been acknowledged since the earliest work in management and organization theory (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Selznick, 1957). Using this perspective, we can examine how one construes the follower role and the differential ways in which the follower role is enacted in organizations (Carsten et al., 2010). Follower role orientation is defined as one’s beliefs regarding the responsibilities, activities, and behaviors that are important to the role of followers, how broadly one perceives the role, and one’s beliefs about what it takes to be effective while working with leaders (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Role orientations are a cognitive belief structure that involves one’s perception of the best way to enact a role (Parker, 2000, 2007). Follower role orientations help us understand the behaviors of individuals acting in the context of leaders. They help us understand the behaviors of subordinates as they operate in relation to managers, superiors, “higher-ups,” etc. There are potentially many different ways that followers may define their role in organizations, but some of the most common involve the notion that followers are passive and deferent (i.e., passive follower role orientations), that followers are defiant and resist authority (i.e., the anti-authoritarian, or “non-follower”), and the notion that followers are engaged, proactive, and work in partnership with leaders (i.e., proactive follower role orientations) (Howell & Mendez, 2008; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). We discuss each of these below. 1.3.1.1. The passive follower Passive follower role orientations align with the historical view that followers are passive, deferent, and obedient (Courpasson & Dany, 2003; de Cremer & Van Dijk, 2005; de Vries & Van Gelder, 2005; Gerber, 1988; Ravlin & Thomas, 2005). They mirror the portrait of followers painted by years of evolution in both business and society. Individuals who hold a passive follower role orientation believe that followers should be passive recipients of a leader’s influence and that the follower role is best enacted by remaining silent and deferent to the leader’s directives (Carsten et al., 2010). Emerging research on follower role orientations suggests that some followers in organizations endorse this definition and enact their role by going along with the leader’s wishes without question (Carsten et al., 2010; de Vries & Van Gelder, 2005). In their qualitative study on how individuals socially construct followership, Carsten et al. (2010) found that a third of their respondents endorsed this passive role orientation, stating that that the best way to enact the follower role

16


is to do things “the leader’s way.” One respondent said: “As a subordinate, it takes someone who is willing to listen and follow … especially since you may not be privy to all the information, so in that way, you can’t question everything, you just have to go with it.” Follow-up research has also found that followers who endorse a passive role orientation fail to speak up to their leaders with ideas, suggestions, or challenge the status quo in a positive way (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, & Jayawickrema, 2013). Passive followers remain silent, believing that they have little to offer to the leadership process, and that “higher-ups” have more expertise, experience, and insight to solve problems and make decisions. While some level of deference and obedience is required by individuals in a subordinate role (we are not suggesting that followers should be disobedient), recent research also suggests that enacting the follower role in a passive manner may negatively affect one’s emotional stability. For example, in a recent laboratory study, Hoption et al. (2012) found that labeling someone as a “follower” evoked negative emotional responses. Research also demonstrates that telling someone they are a “follower” and asking them to work with a “leader” prompted feelings of inferiority and the perception that followers lacked certain capabilities (Gerber, 1988). This research suggests that some individuals maintain the passive and deferent definition of followers that has been perpetuated for thousands of years. In an organizational setting, however, research is starting to show that leaders may have varying reactions to such followers. For example, a leader who maintains a more autocratic style of leadership likely sees these followers as highly effective and easy to work with. In contrast, a leader who seeks to engage with followers, and partner with them to solve organizational problems would receive little help from these more passive followers. In both instances, these followers may refrain from engaging with their leader as their role orientation precludes them from adding to the leadership process in a meaningful way. 1.3.1.2. The anti-authoritarian follower A second follower role orientation is that of the “non-follower” (Collinson, 2006; Lipman-Blumen, 2005). Individuals with an anti-authoritarian role orientation feel that they should avoid domination by a leader and combat the leader’s authority or desire to control them (Gregory, 1955). According to Bennett (1988), these individuals resist subordination by attempting to avoid situations where they are forced to take directives from above; they could even become antagonistic with leaders who they perceive are trying to dominate them. Anti-authoritarian followers resist helping the leader by ignoring directives or avoiding opportunities to work with the leader to solve problems. Indeed, these individuals are likely to perceive that working with, or supporting a leader, means giving in to the leader’s authority and allowing themselves to be put in a “one-down” position (Carsten et al., 2013). Research suggests that followers who maintain an anti-authoritarian role orientation see leaders as adversaries, and could find themselves in contentious relationships with authority figures (Bennett, 1988; Weitman, 1962). In such cases, leaders may see these individuals as detracting from meeting the goals of the work unit,


17

preventing the group from making good decisions and optimizing productivity. Unlike passive followers who remain silent but follow dutifully, anti-authoritarian followers remain silent and resist the leader’s directives and influence (Carsten et al., 2013). In this way, anti-authoritarian individuals engage in behaviors that can negatively affect both the progress of the work unit, and the level of motivation and satisfaction felt by their leaders (Carsten et al., 2013). 1.3.1.3. The proactive follower A third follower role orientation that directly contradicts the traditional view of followers as passive and ineffectual is the proactive follower role orientation. Recent literature on followership suggests that some followers may perceive their role as best performed by taking initiative, thinking independently, and challenging the leader when needed (Chaleff, 1995; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Kelley, 1992). Followers with a proactive role orientation believe that it is their job to partner with leaders by voicing ideas and opinions, taking initiative to identify and solve problems, and seeking ways to help the work unit more effectively achieve its goals (Carsten et al., 2010). Proactive followers believe that they have something valuable to offer and contend that leadership processes (and by extension, organizational outcomes) are improved when followers actively engage with leaders. This notion that followers can enhance leadership processes and outcomes is not new in the leadership literature. Over two decades ago, Robert Kelley (1992) proposed a model of follower styles which classify follower behavior into categories of passive or active, and critical or noncritical thinking. Followers who think critically about process and outcomes, and who are actively engaged in the leadership process are labeled “exemplary followers.” According to Kelley, these followers help leaders to be more effective by offering opinions, questioning decisions, and taking initiative to offer creative solutions to problems. Similar to Kelley’s definition of exemplary followers, Ira Chaleff (1995) drew attention to the notion of the courageous follower by defining the type of follower behaviors that are required to achieve success in modern organizations. Chaleff argues that in order to effect positive change, followers need to question their leader’s actions and decisions rather than succumbing to power differentials and remaining silent. Recent research supports this notion that some followers define their role in more proactive terms and believe that engaging with the leader is the best way to advance organizational objectives. For example, Carsten et al. (2010) provide evidence that followers with a proactive role orientation are more likely to voice their opinions in a constructive way, and that leaders respond to this higher level of engagement positively. Followers with a proactive orientation, who engage in voice behavior, were said to provide more support to the leader and more effectively help the leader achieve departmental goals (Carsten et al., 2013). In their qualitative research on follower roles, one proactive follower stated the following: To me, to be an effective follower is all about being proactive. Doing some of the detailed thinking that your leader may not. But the other important thing of an effective follower is when to say no. When to

18

Melissa K. Carsten et al. bring other valid information to the table that says, you know what? Let’s talk about what you’re trying to achieve rather than the solution you are asking me to implement. So saying no and challenging the thinking of that person you are following. (Carsten et al., 2010, p. 551)

This portrayal of the proactive follower is quite different from the images of followers conveyed throughout history (Hollander, 1993). It suggests that followers are not merely silent workers with little to offer, but redefines followers as important contributors to the leadership process. Although much more research needs to be conducted to ascertain whether these followers truly have a positive effect on leaders and organizations, the idea that followers can be proactively engaged challenges traditional thinking, pushing us to redefine followership in a way that is beneficial to organizations. Although traditional views of followership still hold a place in modern thinking, we must also make an effort to blend traditional historical perspectives with the realities of modern organizations.

1.4.

Blending the Old with the New: An Expanded View of Followership

Our review of historical and academic perspectives on followership, and the ways in which these perspectives have changed over the eras, highlights a need to expand our views of followership for the modern era. We see elements of this expanded view in our historical review, in cases where followers do not always follow; and we find evidence for it in emerging research showing that followers are not only subordinates but also active contributors to the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). An expanded view can be realized by merging the multiple elements of followership that are found in these varying perspectives. Our intention is not to erase the views of followers that have been developed in the past, but to supplement these treatments with a new perspective that can be used to explore followership in a more positive light, and help organizations — and individuals — discover the benefits of being a follower. 1.4.1.

Followers Get the Job Done

If leaders are to be credited with setting the vision for the department or organization and inspiring followers to action, then followers need to be credited with the work that is required to make the vision a reality. Even the most long-standing accounts of leadership suggest that followers work in unison with the leader to accomplish goals and objectives. In early human tribes, the leader, as well as the group, benefited when followers put their full effort into hunting, migrating, and problem solving (Van Vugt et al., 2008). Despite the fact that leaders are romanticized as the primary drivers of positive organizational outcomes


19

(Meindl et al., 1985), in reality it takes the effort of leaders and followers, working in unison, to advance organizational objectives. To generate effective leadership outcomes, followers need to draw upon their intellect, problem solving skills, communication abilities, and interpersonal skills to actualize a leader’s plan or agenda (Carsten et al., 2010; Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Shamir, 2007). Organizations, therefore, need followers who are capable of adopting a proactive role orientation as well as those who are passive and compliant when needed. Obviously followers who question every directive from their leader or work to devise alternative approaches to every proposal would be detrimental to organizational functioning. But organizations do need followers who are able to think critically about directives, envision potential consequences, and either engage or defer depending on the circumstances surrounding the leader’s agenda. 1.4.2.

Followers Work in the Best Interest of the Organization’s Mission

Although traditional conceptualizations of followers suggest that they are blindly deferent and obedient to the directives of the leader (Courpasson & Dany, 2003), emerging research on followership suggests that many followers report being primarily committed to the mission of the organization (which may or may not align with the agenda of an individual leader) (Carsten et al., 2010). In their qualitative research on follower role constructions, Carsten and colleagues show that proactive followers who take initiative to solve problems and promote positive change say they do so in alignment with the organizational mission. Indeed, there are many cases where the leader’s agenda is not ideal for the progress of the organization (see Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2013). Followers who believe that their role puts them in service to the organization’s mission first and the goals or objectives of the leader second are better prepared to help address organizational interests first. This type of commitment is important in cases where a leader may attempt to promote a self-serving agenda, or ask followers to engage in behaviors that are unethical (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007). For followers, this requires the ability to think critically about the leader’s directives and choose an appropriate course of action. Followers who consider the best interests of the organization’s mission, and think about how a leader’s directive may advance or detract from the organization’s goals, may help to keep the organization on track and ensure that organizations thrive in difficult times. 1.4.3.

Followers Challenge Leaders

Organizations increasingly require followers to think independently about processes and procedures (Kelley, 1992), and identify challenges or obstacles that may affect productivity. In many cases, voicing these concerns may directly challenge the leader’s assumptions, directives, or proposed course of action. According to recent research, these types of follower behaviors may be risky and leaders may perceive that the follower is crossing a line, or stepping out of sync with the rest of the group (Burris, 2012; Millikin, Morrison, & Hewlin, 2003; Morrison, 2011). Some leaders

20


may be so threatened by this behavior that they reject these followers or attempt to retaliate (Milliken et al., 2003). However, despite these risks, constructive criticism delivered at the right time in the right way can be beneficial for organizations. For example, a follower who identifies needed change or sees weakness in a process or procedure may save the organization time and money by attempting to correct the deficiency. Because followers are on the “front line,” so to speak, interacting daily with the organization’s products, services, and customers, they are often in the best position to identify problems. However, followers also must be cognizant of how they voice their concerns and understand that not every battle is worth fighting. Knowing when to proactively challenge a directive and when to passively follow orders is important in these situations. However, if a major issue or deficiency is detected, followers who are too passive and remain silent may actually hurt the organization. 1.4.4.

Followers Support the Leader

Although organizations would indeed benefit from followers who challenge the status quo when needed, followers also need to show support for their leaders and the leadership agenda. Followers cannot, and should not, challenge everything (although this may be the case with anti-authoritarian individuals). However, even when followers push back and challenge a leader’s ideas, the leader still needs to trust they will have the support of their followers when the time comes to execute a decision. Thus, followers should engage with leaders in an effort to make sure that the best course of action is being executed, but also remain steadfast and supportive to the leader’s final decision. In the research by Carsten et al. (2010, p. 553), one follower commented on a final decision that went against his advisement and described the approach he took to making the best of a bad situation: I got a chance to be heard when those decisions were made, and really were not exactly the way I wanted them to go. I guess I look at it this way … I can take that and I can do two things: I can accept it, I can be respectful, I can be loyal, I can work out ways to make it work, or I can complain about it, and be deceitful, I can say bad things about the decision … and I think that sets a tone for the whole building. 1.4.5.

Followers Learn from Leaders

Perhaps one of the greatest benefits of being an engaged and proactive follower is the opportunity to learn from leaders. Even followers of the earliest human tribes were thought to watch and learn from effective leaders in an effort to gain their own leadership capabilities (Van Vugt et al., 2008). From a follower position, one has the benefit of seeing the whole picture, seeing what works and what doesn’t, and learning the best way to deal with difficult or contemptuous situations. Without this informal training, many of today’s leaders would not be effective at solving


21

difficult problems or handling difficult employees. In the study by Carsten et al. (2010, p. 551), one follower put it this way: “I think in a subordinate position, you have a chance to learn, you have a chance to see things from a subordinate position that, sometimes when you’re on the ‘perch,’ you don’t necessarily see.” The followership recommendations offered in this section are not meant to favor one follower role orientation over another. Rather, it is important for followers to be able to be passive and proactive, but more importantly, to know when to enact the appropriate role depending on the leader and the context (for more on this, see Chapter 9 in this book). While we contend that anti-authoritarian followershipis not appropriate, it is important to understand that followers adopt different role orientations, and that each has a different effect on leaders and organizations. The best “style” of followership, therefore, is likely determined by the situations in which followers find themselves and the salient problem or issue under consideration.

1.5.

Conclusion

Followership is not a new concept in historical or organizational scholarship. However, it is considered one of the least well-understood roles in organizations (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). For centuries, individuals have been serving in follower roles, and although the follower role has historically been defined as one of obedience, deference, and unthinking submission, this definition does not fit with the needs of modern organizations. Businesses today require active and engaged followers who work with leaders to advance the mission and objectives of the organization. Successful leadership today requires the support, engagement, and critical thinking of individuals who serve effectively in a follower role. This more active and engaged definition of followers is beneficial for leaders and organizations alike. It will require, however, that we escape the negative connotations of the past to advance an expanded view of followership as a broad-ranging role that is essential for the effective performance of leadership.

References Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193!209. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bennett, J. B. (1988). Power and influence as distinct personality traits: Development and validation of a psychometric measure. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(3), 361!394. Bennis, W. G. (2000). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without the full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 71!79.

22


Blakey, D. L. (1978). Alternative considerations of Jonestown and peoples temple. San Diego, CA: Jonestown Project, San Diego State University. Affidavit of Deborah Layton Blakey. Retrieved from http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/PrimarySources/BlakeyAffida vit.htm Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64(1), 37!45. Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centred approaches. In A. Bryman, K. Grint, B. Jackson, M. Uhl-Bien, & D. Collinson (Eds.), The sage handbook of leadership (pp. 1180!1216). London, UK: Sage. Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian society and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology, 34, 227!254. Brown, J. A. C. (1954). The social psychology of industry: Human relations in the factory. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. Burris, E. R. (2012). The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 851!875. Carlyle, T. (1888). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history. New York, NY: Frederick A. Stokes & Brother. Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 45!57. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., & Jayawickrema, A. (2013). Reversing the lens in leadership research: Investigating follower role orientation and leader outcomes. Paper presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Southern Management Association, New Orleans, LA. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543!562. Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Child, J. (1967). Industrial management. In S. R. Parker, R. K. Brown, J. Child, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), The Sociology of Industry. New York, NY: Praeger. Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179!189. Courpasson, D., & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic hybrids. Organization Studies, 24(8), 1231!1260. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man. London: Appleton. de Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2005). When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(4), 553!563. de Vries, R. E., & van Gelder, J.-L. (2005). Leadership and the need for leadership: Testing an implicit followreship theory. In B. Schyns & J. R. Meindl (Eds.), Implicit leadership theories: Essays and explorations (pp. 277!304). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 327!344. Follett, M. P. (1927). Leader and expert. In H. C. Metcalf (Ed.), The psychological foundations of management (pp. 220!243). Chicago, IL: Shaw. Follett, M. P. (1949). The essentials of leadership. London: Management Publications Trust. Galton, F. (1883/2012). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. Burlington, IA: Ostara Publications.


23

Gerber, G. L. (1988). Leadership roles and the gender stereotype traits. Sex Roles, 18(11), 649!668. Gregory, W. E. (1955). “Authoritarianism” and authority. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 641!643. Heckscher, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change (pp. 14!62). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hirschhorn, L. (1990). Leaders and followers in a postindustrial age: A psychodynamic view. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(4), 529!542. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & A. Roya (Eds.), Leadership theory and practice: Perspectives and directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hoption, C. B., Christie, A. M., & Barling, J. (2012). Submitting to the follower label: Followership, positive affect and extra-role behaviors. Journal of Psychology, 220, 221–230. Howell, J., & Mendez, M. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 25!40). San Francisco, MA: Jossey-Bass. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96!112. James, W. (1897). The importance of individuals. In W. James (Ed.), The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy (pp. 255!262). New York, NY: Longmans. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Broadway Business. Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 48!60. Latour, S. H., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership: The prerequisite for effective leadership. Air and Space Power Journal, 18(4), 102!111. Lawler, E. E., & Galbraith, J. R. (1994). Avoiding the corporate dinosaur syndrome. Organizational Dynamics, 23(2), 5!17. Lewin, K., Lippit, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271!301. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal, 69(3), 1!8. Lord, R. G. (1985). An information processing approach to social perceptions, leadership and behavioral measurement in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 87!128. Maynard-Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McLellan, D. (1973). Karl Marx: His life and thought (pp. 189!190). New York, NY: Harper & Row. Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329–341. Meindl, J. R. (1998). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social construction approach. In F. Dansereau & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.), Leadership: The multiplelevel approaches (pp. 285!298). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

24


Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78!102. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57!76. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453!1476. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373!412. Nicholson, N. (2000). Managing the human animal. New York, NY: Thomson. Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 447–469. Parker, S. K. (2007). That is my job: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403!434. Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899!929. Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification processes in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31(6), 966!987. Reiterman, T., & Jacobs, J. (1982). Raven: The untold story of reverend Jim Jones and his people. New York, NY: Dutton. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Followercentered perspectives on leadership. A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix!xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35!71. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73!84. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of Scientific Management. New York, NY: Harper & Bros. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115!191). New York, NY: Academic Press. Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187!201. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83!104. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354!371. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182!196. Volti, R. (2008). An introduction to the sociology of work and occupations. Los Angeles, CA: Pine Forge Press.


25

Weitman, M. (1962). More than one kind of authoritarian. Journal of Personality, 30, 193!208. Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 147!197). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Chapter 2

Exploring the “Flip Side” of the Coin: Do Authentic Leaders Need Authentic Followers? Rhonda K. Rodgers and Michelle C. Bligh

Abstract Purpose ! An extensive body of theory exists on the topic of authentic leadership; the aim of this chapter is to shift the locus of authentic behavior from leader to follower. Design/methodology/approach ! We begin with an examination of current scholarly theory, and infuse real world observations to help further define authentic followership. We subsequently explore how it can be developed in employees at all levels in the organization. Findings ! Findings from the applied world suggest that followers high in both organizational knowledge and workplace engagement are more likely to exhibit authentic traits. Further, authentic followers can be divided into two categories: those who do not wish to assume formal leader roles, and those not yet chosen for formal leader roles. Practical implications (if applicable) ! We posit that authentic followership can be developed in any employee who exhibits the requisite traits of authenticity such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and a propensity for selfdevelopment. We suggest that organizations of the future will enable employees across the organization to develop leadership skills, view themselves as leaders, and step into a leadership role when circumstances dictate such actions. Originality/value ! The line between authentic follower and authentic leader is frequently context dependent, and the authentic leader can step into a followership role as easily as the authentic follower can step into a leadership role. Administrators and executives in both private and public sectors can benefit from a model of authentic leadership that highlights how authentic


28

Rhonda K. Rodgers and Michelle C. Bligh followership contributes to the transparency needed to allay the ever-present threat of unethical behavior. Keywords: Authenticity; followership; authentic leadership theory; shared leadership; unethical behavior

While much has been written on the topic of authentic leadership, recently increased attention is turning to followership, and more specifically, what it means to be an authentic follower (Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2014). Previous theory and research has focused on the inherent traits that an authentic follower brings to the table (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005), and the inculcation process through which an authentic leader molds or develops such a follower (Gardner et al., 2005). In this chapter, we explore the parallels between authentic followers and authentic leaders and discuss how they can be mutually beneficial in the modern organization. Furthermore, we shift the focus of authenticity from leadership to followership through an examination of scholarly theory and applied experience to both define authentic followership and explore how it can be developed in employees at all levels of an organization. Leaders in the literal sense are those that are followed by others (Northouse, 2012) and contemporary leadership is a process grounded in the relationship between leader and follower (Avolio & Reichard, 2008). Shamir and Eilam (2005) introduced the construct of authentic followership as one in which the follower has an authentic relationship with the leader. Given that leaders do not exist without followers, that leadership is grounded in the relationship between leader and follower, and that the parties involved dictate the authenticity of the relationship, deductively, authentic leaders need authentic followers. In exploring what it means to be an authentic follower, it is helpful to explore the etymology of authenticity. The word authentic, as defined by Merriam-Webster (2013), is: (1) authoritative; (2) a. worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact; b. conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features; c. made or done the same way as an original; (3) not false or imitation; (4) a. of a church mode: ranging upward from the keynote; b. of a cadence: progressing from the dominant chord to the tonic; (5) true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character. Interestingly, a now obsolete definition of the word authentic belies its leader-centric roots, as the word originally denoted an authoritative figure, or one that has authority and as such is knowledgeable (Merriam-Webster, 2013). This connotation of authenticity was first used in the early 17th century, a time when morality was an expectation of those in power, and thus authenticity was considered a normative aspect of the leadership role. In addition, authentic leadership encompassed various persons that could impart moral behavior to others. For instance, schoolteachers in the 18th century were expected to teach morality by exercising the same standards as clergy and thus leading by example. The early focus on authenticity as a central component of the leadership role reflects a paternalistic approach to leadership rooted in the divine authority of the early monarchs and religious figures.

The “Flip Side” of the Coin: Do Authentic Leaders Need Authentic Followers?

29

The first part of the definition also implies that the authentic, authoritative figure is knowledgeable to the extent that they have a level of information, training, or experience that the follower does not share. In light of the complexity of knowledge and ambiguity inherent in modern organizations, the ability of the leadership figure to sustain this level of specialized knowledge that has historically differentiated leader from follower is becoming increasingly rare. Perhaps in part due to these changes, more contemporary definitions of authenticity emphasize the final component: one that is true to one’s own personality, character, or spirit (MerriamWebster, 2013). The authentic individual also owns her personal experiences and acts in accordance with her true inner self, thus expressing herself through actions consistent with inner feelings and thoughts (Harter, 2002). As such, a fully functioning individual will be unencumbered by others’ expectations and thus can make more sound personal choices (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). A similar concept is rooted in existential philosophy, where authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own character in spite of external pressures (Watts, 2003). Consistent with this focus, authentic leadership development emphasizes self-awareness as the starting point for authenticity (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Likewise, the construct of authentic followership mirrors this same developmental process and is characterized by heightened levels of self-regulation and selfawareness (Gardner et al., 2005). Such awareness occurs when the individual is cognizant of his or her own existence, what constitutes this existence, and how this understanding evolves over time (Silvia & Duval, 2001). Furthermore, selfawareness is an emerging process, whereby one continually grows to understand their sense of purpose, core values, beliefs, desires, and unique strengths and talents (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Importantly, this last aspect of authenticity also highlights its potential malleability, making it clearly resonate with processes of ongoing followership and leadership development. However, even in emphasizing its developmental aspects, all of these definitional components highlight the more innate, person-centered characteristics that define an authentic individual. In contrast to this intra-individual approach, we suggest that the true impact of authenticity for modern organizations lies is in its potential to highlight the complex interpersonal dynamics that define the process of developing and maintaining authenticity in relation to other organizational actors. Specifically, we now turn to how the relationship between leader and follower develops as an integrated mechanism of checks and balances in the realm of ethics, morals, and the importance authenticity poses within the organizational context to counter the potential to be blinded by one’s own values (Price, 2003). For example, upper level leaders in the organization bear the responsibility for both performance and malfeasance within their company, but oftentimes a fine line exists between what is good for the bottom line and what is considered ethical. We posit that an absence of shared consensus building in such instances may be short sighted, and suggest that an open dialogue between leader and follower is needed to establish shared norms on what constitutes ethicality for the organization. Furthermore, we acknowledge that incongruence may exist between what the organization considers ethical versus the opinions of outsiders. From the perspective of authenticity, it

30

Rhonda K. Rodgers and Michelle C. Bligh

follows that organizational members (leaders and followers) and external stakeholders should collectively engage in a dialogue on the ethicality of organizational actions. Such dialogue could potentially break down the siloed world in which organizations act and their customers react, by spreading responsibility for ethicality, rather than deferring to the decisions of one individual (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012). In this way, leaders, followers, and shareholders jointly define what it means to be authentic, precisely in situations in which there are ambiguities in what constitutes the most ethical behavior for all involved parties. We define the authentic follower as one who is capable of developing an authentic relationship with the authentic leader. Authentic follower characteristics include an internalized moral perspective, and heightened levels of self-awareness, and self-regulation. We posit that authentic followership can be developed in any employee who exhibits the requisite traits of authenticity such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and a desire for self-development. And as in the field of authentic leader development, these building blocks can be expanded to include the advanced skills of moral perspective, relational transparency, and balanced processing.

2.1.

Authenticity in the Fluidity of Leadership and Followership

A great deal of literature has explored the ambiguity around what constitutes a leader within the modern organization. In the command and control version of assigned leadership, the leader is recognized by the organization via job responsibility and title (Northouse, 2012). Others differentiate the practice of leadership versus the exercise of bureaucratic power; those that can mobilize others without formal powers are leaders and those that cannot are bureaucrats (Weber, 2003). Still others regard leaders in the literal sense as those that are followed by others, regardless of formal responsibility or job title (Northouse, 2012). Ashford and DeRue (2012) posit that the term leader is an antiquated concept, and that leadership is a fundamental state that individuals can enter and exit. This fluidity is echoed in the burgeoning field of positive organizational scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003), in which leadership development is available to everyone in the organization and employees at all levels are empowered to develop their own leadership identities. Granted, there will continue to be a need for a formal structure of leaders and managers who envision and execute organizational plans, and not all followers are willing to step into a leadership role. But unlike the more autocratic organizations of the past, modern organizations are beginning to recognize the value of incorporating a diverse array of stakeholders into the leadership process. Beyond the model of participative decision making (Vroom & Yetton, 1973), this evolving model of shared leadership foments a more dynamic and interactive influencing process among individuals and groups to achieve organizational goals. In addition, this influencing process can involve lateral or peer influence, as well as upward and downward hierarchical influence (Pearce & Conger, 2002).


31

Furthermore, modern organizations understand the importance of both formal and informal leaders in the leader!follower relationship. We posit that organizations of the future will model this approach to enable employees across the organization to develop the skills to lead, view themselves as leaders, and step into a leadership role when circumstances dictate such actions (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). With these points in mind, we suggest the line between authentic follower and authentic leader is a matter of context and the authentic leader can step into a followership role as easily as the authentic follower can step into a leadership role. We now examine the term leadership as it applies to the initial definition of authenticity: the authoritarian figure as the keeper of knowledge, primary decision maker, and sole director of others. We argue that in the new world order, the depth of responsibility transcends the abilities of any one leader or hierarchical chain of command, and the competitive advantage belongs to the organization that enables members at all levels to step into leadership roles. Lipman-Blumen (2000) defined this Connective Era as characterized by constant movement in connections between people, ideas, and organizations. She also stated that connective leaders utilize strategies which “… distribute the leadership burdens and bring other leaders as well as followers into the process” (Lipman-Blumen, 2000, p. 7). The explosive ubiquity of information and complexity of technology in the external environment also heighten the need for decision makers and action takers at all levels of the organization. To provide one example, a midlevel employee working from home chose to move her company files to a backup server when she heard the World Trade Center had been attacked (Avolio & Reichard, 2008). This unilateral decision allayed a catastrophic loss of records and subsequent fiscal impact for her organization. The term follower as a noun is defined as: one in the service of another, one that follows teachings and opinions of another, and perhaps most interestingly, one that imitates another (Merriam-Webster, 2013). Kelley (2008) defined five followership styles that explain the ways in which people follow. The “star follower” was identified as one who thinks for herself, is positive, active, and resembles a leader in disguise (p. 8). Given the parallels to our model of an authentic individual, this model will serve as the relational foundation for our construct of the authentic follower. Avolio and Reichard (2008) discuss contemporary leadership as a process that is fundamentally grounded in the relationship between the leader and follower. They also highlight the importance of psychological ownership (Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001) and psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) in this relationship. Psychological ownership enables each stakeholder to claim responsibility for decision making, beyond job descriptions and task functions, and psychological safety empowers the stakeholder to take action to impact organizational outcomes. In this model, it is the dynamic interaction between leader and follower that constitutes leadership. When viewed through the lens of social identity theory, leadership is similarly formed through an interactive process, whereby the leader psychologically represents the group via exhibiting the normative characteristics of the in-group (Hogg, 2001). We bring this point to light because it again highlights that followers and leaders are inextricably linked. Leaders influence followers and vice versa; they are

32


in a dynamic relationship together and are two sides of the same coin (Rost, 1993). Authenticity thus encompasses relationships at all levels of the organization, including those formally recognized as leaders and those working informally, or behind the scenes, in influencing the spirit and character of the group. And while a normative social influence is crucial for organizational cohesion, the ethical concern with this model is the potentiality of groupthink and dogmatism. Van Vugt and de Cremer (1999) conducted experiments around this challenge and found that when members strongly identified with a group faced with a social dilemma, they preferred a leader that shared the group’s values and believed such a leader would be more effective (van Vugt & de Cremer, 1999). Thus, while an ethically corrupt group may breed an equally corrupt leader, the altruism of the group, and the authenticity of followers can also serve as a buffering mechanism against a leader acting on behalf of her own values rather than those espoused by the whole. We will refer to this model as an ethical system of checks and balances whereby the group collectively monitors the behavior of the individual be it leader or follower. Here again, we note the benefit of a shared authentic relationship between leader and follower in assessing and resolving such incongruences. Authentic outcomes will be better facilitated through a combination of authentic followers and leaders; thus authentic leaders need authentic followers and vice versa. We will return to this topic briefly to discuss the merits of this model in greater detail.

2.2.

The Follower Label: Another “F Word”?

Is follower a label of condescension? Not in an authentic leadership model. In the archetypal leader!follower relationship, the leader — whether a supervisor, manager, bureaucrat, or administrator — is simply the upper link in a chain of command. The follower, by default, is not officially designated by the organization to hold a leadership position. In this simplified model, the two work together to achieve organizational goals. This model, however, does not relieve the follower of his or her moral obligations as a stakeholder in the organization, nor their existential right of self-agency. Nor does it recognize the complexities of taking on both leader and follower roles. And while a subordinate must assume some degree of followership, the authentic follower exercises self-agency in all transactions, and is keenly aware of his or her influence on people and events that occur both up and down the chain of command. Therefore, the stigma of followership is not due to condescension, but rather to scope. As stated above, Shamir and Eilam (2005) introduced the construct of authentic followership as one in which the follower has an authentic relationship with the leader. Gardner et al. (2005) introduced the construct of authentic followership as one that mirrors the same developmental process as authentic leadership and is characterized by heightened levels of self-awareness and self-regulation, which leads to positive development and outcomes. With this in mind, the authentic follower


33

exercises a great degree of self-agency and thus believes that organizational consequences are the result of his or her own actions and intentions (Gardner et al., 2005). Authentic followers reject the current “us-versus-them” siloed mentality and act as we employees. They take ownership in their department and feel responsibility for tasks outside of their designated job descriptions. We acknowledge that these characteristics are also embodied in organizational citizenship behavior (OCBs) (Ilies, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007); however, we posit that in addition to exhibiting OCB, authentic followers embody the same characteristics as authentic leaders. Northouse (2012) defined these four characteristics as internalized moral perspective, self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced processing. Moral perspective involves self-regulation in accordance with one’s internal standards. Relational transparency involves sharing information to present one’s authentic self. And balanced processing involves the ability to objectively analyze information before decision making. Fundamentally, the complexity, volume of information, and ambiguities inherent in 21st century organizations necessitate a paradigm shift away from the elitism of leadership as represented by an authoritative few. Every entity in an organization is a follower in some capacity. Even C-suite executives answer to boards of directors (BOD). Thus, the myth of leaders being solely leaders and followers likewise, is perpetuated through the prevalent us-versus-them mentality. Furthermore, silos between leaders and followers inhibit operational transparency, which reinforces the necessity of checks and balances in the leader!follower relationship. A BOD is established for the express purpose of oversight in the upper echelons of power, but this oversight is limited to quarterly meetings. Encouraging that the same checks exist from bottom up, where oversight can occur on a daily basis, thus becomes an increasing imperative. Similarly, ethicality becomes the responsibility of the entire organization rather than those at the top of the chain of command. Successful organizations have been destroyed by unethical behavior committed by members at all levels (e.g., Nick Leeson of Barings Bank in 1995 and Bernie Madoff’s US$50 billion ponzi scheme in 2008). Such individuals often act unilaterally and clandestinely within the organization. An ethical system of checks and balances actualized by transparent leader!follower relationships and heightened by the availability of authentic leaders and followers at all levels in the organization can act as a powerful counter to ethical misdeeds. In sum, we suggest that a model of authentic leadership and authentic followership contributes to the transparency needed to allay the everpresent threat of unethical behavior and that authentic leaders do indeed need authentic followers to accomplish this end.

2.3.

Authentic Followers: Why Follow?

We now examine the role of the authentic follower in formal, informal, and contextual settings. Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, and May (2004) stated that the essence of authenticity is to know, accept, and remain true to one’s self. In this

34


spirit, we recognize that there are those who do not desire to assume formal leadership roles. Thus, we must reframe the belief that those not in a formal leadership role are not capable to lead, as in “this employee was not selected as a leader and therefore they do not qualify as leader material.” The authentic follower has made an active decision to follow for his or her own reasons. It may be that they are waiting for the opportunity to be chosen for a formal leadership position, or that they do not wish to be tapped for a formal leadership role, but neither choice will diminish the quality of their followership. Authentic followers understand their critical role in the organization and, like authentic leaders, choose to continually grow as individuals and employees and thus exhibit the same traits as authentic leaders, which enhances this bidirectional relationship. So why do authentic followers follow? We posit that there are two types of authentic followers: those who do not wish to assume formal leader roles and those who have not yet been chosen for formal leadership roles. Within the first category, the possibility also exists that authentic followers have found a more productive way to impact organizational change. Formally recognized leaders may lack the flexibility needed to serve others due to a mandated focus on performance driven metrics (tasks) and thus have by default taken on the role of manager or bureaucrat. The authentic follower may in fact be less constricted in job description than his or her superior. This greater degree of freedom, coupled with a lessened power distance with fellow employees, may therefore allow for greater influence on the development of others, as well as positive organizational outcomes. With these points in mind, we begin to construct the profile of an authentic follower: one who has been with the organization long enough to prove themselves as star followers, one who shares the attributes of the in-group, is considered an informal leader within their department, one who is a keeper of institutional knowledge, one who is trusted by both managers and co-workers, and most importantly, one who serves as a linking mechanism between managers and other subordinates both within their department and across the organization.

2.4.

Authentic Leadership Theory

We next examine the process of authentic followership as related to authentic leadership and leadership development theory. We now recognize leadership as a fundamental state that individuals can choose to enter or exit, regardless of formal title or position within the organization (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). Furthermore, we understand that authentic followership mirrors the same developmental process as authentic leadership (Gardner et al., 2005). With these points in mind, we begin to dissect the building blocks of authentic followership through an examination of authentic leadership. Authentic leadership theory draws upon many fields, including ethics, positive scholarship, and leadership theory (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005). The primary objectives of authentic leadership theory are first, to address the current climate of ethical crises in corporations, and second, to help


35

employees find connection and meaning in the workplace and thus increase employee well-being (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012). We will examine these goals through two prevalent schools of thought, leadership from a social psychological approach and existential philosophy. Avolio et al. (2004) define authentic leaders as those who have achieved authenticity in high levels and know what they believe and value, know who they are, and act upon their beliefs and values via transparent interactions with others. Authentic leaders have also been described as individuals who, when called upon by fate, will take a stand that changes the course of history for organizations, departments, and individuals (May, Chan, Hodges, & Avolio, 2003). Furthermore, authentic leaders have a genuine desire to serve others through leadership, are interested in empowering others to make a difference, and are guided by qualities of compassion, heart, and passion, as well as by qualities of the mind (George, 2003). In this model, authentic qualities are first self-developed by a hierarchical leader, who then positively models this behavior for his or her followers to mimic and adopt as their own. The impetus to study authentic leader theory is for the express purpose of devising a method to train and develop leaders who can then foster positive, ethical, work environments (Cooper et al., 2005). Both formative experiences and life trigger events mold the leadership qualities of an authentic leader, who hones his or her abilities through self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-development (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012). Avolio et al. (2004) note that one of the great challenges in developing such a training program is that “life is the most authentic leadership development process” and that greater attention must be devoted to finding a method to train and develop authenticity in leaders (p. 816). Existential philosophers, on the other hand, frame the concept of authenticity as a way to differentiate unconscious living from a state of being and to take responsibility for one’s own life through conscious choice and awareness (Algera & LipsWiersma, 2012). Furthermore, authenticity is consistently described in relationship to external forces, such as one’s relationship to others and the material world in which they live (Heidegger, 2008). Algera and Lips-Wiersma (2012) integrate these philosophical concepts to propose a new model to achieve the same goals of authentic leadership theory: first, by shifting the focus from individual leaders to all members of the organization, and second, by understanding the conditions in which all members behave authentically. They also point out the concern that by solely investing authentic development energy into leaders in an organization, that authentic leadership theory may fall short of reaching the desired outcomes of addressing ethical crises in corporations and helping employees find connection and meaning in their work. A similar idea is mirrored by Eagly’s (2005) observation that “the emphasis on leaders being true to themselves so that they can influence others through displays of their values and beliefs remains curiously one-sided” (p. 460). When viewed together, these two disparate viewpoints of authentic leadership as viewed through social psychology and existential philosophy begin to align. Luthans and Avolio (2003) define the construct of authentic leadership in organizations “as a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-

36


awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development” (p. 243). This generalizability from leader to follower also resonates with the core process of authentic leader development, in which leaders and followers both achieve authenticity and authentic relationships through self-awareness and self-regulatory processes (Gardner et al., 2005). Furthermore, Gardner et al. (2005) posit that authentic followership “largely mirrors the same developmental processes of authentic leadership” and entails the same need for self-awareness and self-regulation in the developmental process (p. 346). Avolio (2005) summarizes that authentic leadership development is more than a training program, but rather a life-long pursuit and a process whereby followers and leaders gain self-awareness and establish transparent, trusting relationships.

2.5.

Authentic Followers’ Impact on Authentic Leaders

According to Rost (1993, p. 102), “leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” Shamir and Eilam (2005) stated that authentic followership is based upon an authentic relationship between follower and leader. We now examine this bidirectional nature of the authentic leader!follower relationship. Avolio and Reichard (2008) posit that authentic followership develops via the modeling of authentic leadership and vice versa. Thus, authentic followers are in a critical position of impacting the process of authentic leader development and authentic leadership. Authentic leadership at its core is a root construct, which means it can incorporate or manifest through other forms of leadership, including ethical and transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 2004). As such, authentic leaders can be authoritarian, directive, or participative (Avolio, 1999). Past literature on authentic leadership theory has focused heavily on the role of the leader in the leader!follower relationship. More recently, a bidirectional relationship has come into vogue whereby authentic followers are viewed in a position to “lead up” both ethically and transparently (Avolio & Reichard, 2008, p. 327). Avolio and Reichard (2008) posit that authentic leadership is being pushed away from “… a compilation of individual traits and behaviors to a dynamic interaction, activity, or process through which leaders and followers create leadership and ultimately its development” (p. 327). Or stated more simply, authentic leaders need authentic followers and vice versa. Questions remain, however, regarding how, or through what processes, authentic followers impact the values, ideas, and ethics of authentic leaders. According to social identity theory, leaders are chosen based upon in-group membership; therefore, at the dyadic level, leaders with authentic traits, such as internalized moral perspective, self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced processing, are more likely to be chosen by followers that exhibit these same values and ideas. It is also important to note that a claim of leadership does not solely result in leader identity. Rather, leader identity must be granted by others in order to be recognized and


37

endorsed by individuals and the organization (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). We posit that this recognition and endorsement is where authentic followers have the greatest impact on leaders, whether authentic or otherwise. A leader that exhibits unauthentic values and ideas will retain her title as CEO, manager, or supervisor, for a period of time, but the underlying erosion of support will undermine the integrity of her or his position. The inevitable result will be diminished trust, which first impacts relationships, and then subsequent performance. Authentic followers impact authentic leader ethics through bidirectional positive modeling and normative pulse taking. For example, J. T. (Ted) Childs, Jr. embodies the traits that create a dynamic authentic relationship between leader and follower. In 1994, Ted Childs, IBM VP of Global Workforce Diversity, shared his vision with then CEO Lou Gerstner to achieve a competitive global advantage through increased cultural diversity (Thomas & Kanji, 2004). Mr. Childs received a call that morning requesting he meet with Mr. Gerstner later that afternoon for a progress report. Rather than returning home to change into professional attire, Childs spent his time drafting a list of what he believed was needed at IBM to generate more business and to improve customer relations. Childs asserted that to accomplish such goals, IBM had to look like its customers at all levels of the organization. Furthermore, IBM must maximize its existing diversity through improved workplace culture. Prior to this meeting, IBM was known for its progressive stance on equal opportunity, but in 1995 less than 5% of the executive pool consisted of people of color. Ryan & Deci (2003) posit that authenticity occurs when a member responds to internal cues rather than societal pressures. In certain circumstances, a leader’s needs and values may be incompatible with the group. In such cases internal conflict will arise and members will need to collectively decide the most authentic course of action. Ted Childs encountered resistance from several senior executives at IBM when attempting to roll out his diversity initiative. He responded by speaking directly with each of these members and explaining how the marketplace was changing, and so too must the company to remain competitive in the marketplace (Thomas & Kanji, 2004). As an authentic follower, Childs entered into a leadership role and modeled appropriate diversity behavior to those executives in the company that were resistant to change. Through an authentic relationship with Childs, leaders within the company began to embrace these behaviors and diversity policy became the norm at IBM. In 2013 Diversity Inc. Magazine named IBM #1 in its top ten companies for global diversity.

2.6.

Authentic Followers and Organizational Outcomes

We posit that authentic followers share responsibility for achieving the two desired outcomes of authentic leadership theory: first, to help defend the organization against unethical behavior through a system of checks and balances, and second, to help facilitate connections via authentic relationships in the workplace, thus enabling employee well-being. We suggest that authentic followers are in a unique

38


position to accomplish these objectives for the following reasons. First, they are likely to have high levels of institutional knowledge and respect in higher echelons of the organization such that they can find the best way to expose unethical behavior without endangering their own position within the company. They do so through experiential knowledge of their organization and through an ability to choose the proper channels of communication to achieve optimal impact. Authentic followers are also adept at managing up the chain of command and can attack an ethical dilemma within their organization from both top down and bottom up channels. Second, authentic followers are poised to elicit greater trust from their peers than a leader or manager with a greater power differential. This can facilitate building connections with their peers and ultimately fostering authentic relationships that can serve to both engage fellow employees and increase the sense of workplace well-being. The nascent field of authentic followership has limited empirical data from which to draw conclusions Yagil & Medler-Liraz, 2014. As stated above, contemporary leadership theory, however, defines leadership as a process that is developed from the relationship between the leader and follower (Avolio & Reichard, 2008). And Gardner et al. (2005) introduced the construct of authentic followership as one that mirrors the same developmental process as authentic leadership, and is characterized by heightened levels of self-awareness and self-regulation, which leads to positive development and outcomes. First, we posit that the positive modeling aspect from authentic leader to authentic follower is actually bidirectional. And second, we posit that similar positive organizational outcomes will exist in the presence of authentic followers as would exist from authentic leaders. Such trust in leadership has been linked to: job performance, elevated job satisfactions, organizational and goal commitment, and OCBs (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Given the absence of empirically driven data regarding the organizational impact of authentic followers, we close with observations of authentic followers. Simply stated, authentic followers positively influence others, both up and down the chain of command. And while there will be individuals within every organization that are resistant to change, the positive relational aspect of the authentic follower will help ease the transition. We refer back to the Ted Childs example earlier. Resistance did exist to Childs’ diversity initiatives, but he was able to leverage his authenticity to help ease the pain of cultural change. Authentic followers impact organizational culture by modeling positive behaviors that infiltrate the organization. They are high in organizational and cultural knowledge and are recognized as star employees that exhibit prototypical ownership behavior versus employees that require constant direction and oversight. Authentic followers influence team effectiveness such as quality of work life and team performance, through positive modeling, positive emotions, positive social exchanges, identifying and leveraging the strengths of their co-workers, and exhibiting leadership skills among peers without creating a power differential. They influence organizational effectiveness by co-creating an environment of positive affect, which impacts employee connectedness, and ultimately performance outcomes such as productivity and stakeholder satisfaction. And finally, they influence individual effectiveness by positively modeling job satisfaction,


39

excelling in performance, minimizing absenteeism, and maximizing personal development.

2.7.

Authentic Followership: A Construct for the Modern Organization

As discussed above, leaders exist throughout the organization and are defined by their influence upon others. Such leaders do not simply have spheres of influence, but rather appear as “nodes of a magnetic spectrum” spanning departments and creating relationships across organizational boundaries (Cooperrider, 2013). In the past we have relied upon two models of management: top down and bottom up. David Cooperrider (2013) introduced the need to begin working from a third model of “whole leadership” which brings in all elements of the organization. We posit that authentic followers will be crucial in the development of this modern leadership model. Given that authenticity is a human quality and individual choice based upon creating one’s own meaning and responsibilities in life, we return to the question, why do authentic followers follow? We have identified two primary categories of authentic follower: those who do not wish to assume formal leadership roles and those who wish to assume formal leadership roles, but have not yet been identified as potential leaders. The first category includes those authentic followers that may have previously held formal leadership positions and no longer wish to perform those functions within their current organization. Such decisions may be based upon personal choices due to obligations outside of the workplace, due to the politics in their current organization, or due to a shift in goals related to work-life balance. In addition, this category of authentic followers may have alternate career goals outside of the organization, or simply may not personally identify with the role of leader. As mentioned earlier, this category also includes followers that have chosen to remain in a followership role to achieve their own personal organizational goals. The second category of authentic follower includes those employees that are interested in assuming a formal leadership role within the organization, but for reasons beyond their control, have not yet been tapped for consideration. Organizational promotion practices are often based upon level of education, prior leadership experience, etc. and may preclude those authentic followers that do not meet these minimum requirements. The possibility may also exist that in today’s flatter organizations there may be more authentic followers than formal leadership roles. Regardless of category, authentic followers possess a high degree of selfagency, and create a niche within their job function so that they can act in accordance with their authentic self regardless of their formal designation within the organization. Authentic followers enter a bidirectional relationship with authentic leaders to achieve organizational goals. There is a shared environment of trust and respect such that authentic leaders rely on authentic followers to help actualize their

40


objectives. Authentic followers are recognized for their efforts and in turn recognize the value of working with authentic leaders. However, this leads to the question as to what happens when authentic followers work with inauthentic leaders. Shamir and Eilam (2005) suggest that authentic followers have an authentic relationship with the leader and follow the leader for authentic reasons. Furthermore, the authors suggest that authentic followers have no illusions or delusions about a leader, nor follow because such delusions provide them with a sense of safety. Thus, authentic followers have independent judgment and realistic views of the leader’s strengths and weaknesses and will not follow him or her blindly (Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Authentic followers are versed in knowledge of the organizational culture, operational knowledge, and workplace engagement (Figure 2.1). Furthermore, authentic followers exhibit the norms of the group to the degree needed to fit in, but also stand out as leaders among peers. As such, authentic followers serve as critical linking mechanisms between authentic leaders and their fellow employees. Given the high knowledge of cultural and operational norms that authentic followers possess, fellow employees often look to these peers for informal instruction and guidance. Authentic followers are adept at managing up, perhaps clandestinely to protect their status as model employees. They are also adept at managing laterally without the knowledge of those they are managing. Authentic followers are also vital components in the ethical check and balance system within the organization. We return to the concept of leadership as a state that individuals can enter and exit at will. Thus, any member of the organization can assume the role of leader as circumstances dictate (Ashford & DeRue, 2012). We also recall that the altruism of the group can serve as a buffering mechanism against an individual acting on behalf of his or her own values rather than those espoused by the whole. This ethical system of checks and balances, when coupled

Org Knowledge High

II

I

Low

III

IV

Low

High Work Place Engagement

Figure 2.1: Authentic follower predictors. Note: Followers high in both organizational knowledge and workplace engagement (quadrant I) are more likely to exhibit traits of authentic followership.


41

with relational and transactional transparency, enables the group to collectively monitor the behavior of the individual be it leader or follower and to assume the role of leader and speak up and out (vertically and laterally) when ethical transgressions are encountered. And while the possibility exists that corruption and unethical behavior can permeate the group, authentic individuals have cultivated a level of self-awareness comprised of their sense of purpose, core values, beliefs, desires, and unique strengths and talents (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Recall that this selfawareness exists regardless of outside influence or pressure and is enhanced by psychological safety cultivated through the bidirectional authentic relationships shared by both authentic followers and leaders. It is critical to note that psychological safety is contingent upon authentic interpersonal relationships and an authentic organizational climate. Another critical element in this system of checks and balances is voice behavior. Voice refers to those employee behaviors that proactively challenge the status quo and work to make constructive changes within the organization (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Mclean Parks, 1995). Individual factors including satisfaction, general self-efficacy (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998), and situational factors including team psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) have been positively linked with employee voice behavior. Liu, Zhu, and Yang (2010) found voice behavior to be target sensitive and that social identification predicted speaking out (voice toward peers) whereas personal identification predicted speaking up (voice toward the supervisor). We posit that authentic relationships augment both social and personal identification and thus encourage both speaking out and speaking up. As previously mentioned the third pro-voice factor, psychological safety, empowers employees to take action to impact organizational outcomes (Avolio & Reichard, 2008). In summary, authentic followers impact organizational outcomes by first positively modeling those attributes that create authenticity in the workplace. They also are key in satisfying a critical linking role between authentic leaders and other followers, as well as various managers and subordinates. Authentic followers build trust between leaders and followers by serving as a liaison to communicate messages both up and down the chain of command in a neutral and non-charged way, which leads to greater buy-in and departmental harmony. And most critically, authentic followers are components of the check and balance system that monitors ethicality in behavior and decision making within the organization. As such, authentic followers are critical to the modern organization as a complement to authentic leaders and to the growing necessity for shared leadership.

2.8.

Implications for Practice and Research

Organizations around the globe are searching for the answer as to what constitutes authentic leadership and how to access or develop this talent. We believe the answer lies in expanding the leadership pool to include members throughout the organization, and authentic followers are uniquely suited to this shared leadership

42


pool. As mentioned previously, we have identified two primary categories of authentic follower: those who do not wish to assume formal leadership roles and those who wish to assume formal leadership roles, but have not yet been identified as potential leaders. At first glance, this appears to be a broad category. However, these employees have typically already been identified by the organization as star followers or leaders in disguise. We recommend that opportunities be made available to these authentic followers and to all members in the organization for positive self-development, whether it is physical health improvement, leadership seminars, business education, or mindfulness training to heighten self-awareness and self-regulation. We posit that authentic followership can be developed in any employee who exhibits the requisite traits of authenticity such as self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-development. And as in the field of authentic leader development, these building blocks can be expanded to include the advanced skills of moral perspective, relational transparency, and balanced processing. Moral perspective involves the ability to regulate one’s behavior in accordance with one’s own internal standards. As part of the system of ethical checks and balances, authentic followers must be able to maintain this perspective in the face of opposition and outside influence. This can be challenging for employees in a subordinate position, but through psychological safety fostered in authentic relationships, this trait can be developed. Relational transparency involves an open sharing of feelings and information to present one’s authentic self. And balanced processing involves the ability to objectively analyze information before making a decision. Again, a culture of psychological safety and opportunities for positive self-enrichment will aid in the development of such authentic skills. As previously mentioned, relational transparency is the open sharing of information and feelings to present one’s authentic self to another, whereas transactional transparency is the real-time dissemination of transaction-based information (Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil website, 2013). Given the outcomes when transparency is not the norm, we suggest that transactional transparency is critical not only in securities markets, but in industries across the organizational spectrum. We advocate that formal leaders in the organization begin to explore more participative styles of leadership to enhance both relational and transactional transparency. Oftentimes this suggestion falls shallowly into the category of delegation of responsibility. What we are recommending is more in line with relationship building and interpersonal development. We encourage leaders to recognize that every member of the organization has a unique skill set and talent. By developing authentic relationships, authentic followers and leaders can begin to leverage each other’s skills for greater efficacy. By and large, this is already happening in most organizations, but raising awareness will make the option of shared leadership more salient in the minds of both authentic followers and authentic leaders. We also recommend that organizations begin to deconstruct the “us-versus-them” mentality between authentic leader and authentic follower. Those concerned with the threat of organizational chaos are missing the point. The superior!subordinate relationship will remain intact, but with fewer barriers to trust building and strength sharing.


43

This will in turn tear down the organizational silos that are inhibiting a strengthsbased operation. We also recommend a greater transactional transparency between authentic leader and follower. Authentic followers are vital components of the ethical check and balance system within the organization. We trust that most individuals in society on the whole espouse a positive moral perspective on life and business. The concern within the business world is that the ideas of the individual can veer from this course when confronted with external pressures. Transparency and situational openness, although challenging during times of distress, are the antidotes to such catastrophe. To foster organizational transparency, we recommend that in addition to an internal reporting system, the organization establish a third party clearing house for ethical concerns to encourage members to anonymously report ethical transgressions without fear of retaliation. Finally, we share the recommendation of Gardner et al. (2005) that the organization must provide an ethical, inclusive, caring, and strengths-based organizational climate for both leaders and followers. In closing, we posit that authentic followers share responsibility for achieving the two desired outcomes of authentic leadership theory: first, to help defend the organization against unethical behavior through a system of checks and balances, and second, to help facilitate connections via authentic relationships in the workplace, thus enabling employee well-being. Furthermore, we believe that like their authentic leader counterparts, authentic followers have a genuine desire to serve others through leadership, are interested in empowering others to make a difference, and are guided by qualities of compassion, heart, and passion, as well as by qualities of the mind (George, 2003). We also posit that like their authentic leader counterparts, authentic followers are individuals who, when called upon by fate, will take a stand that changes the course of history for organizations, departments, and individuals (May et al., 2003). With these points in mind, we call upon our peers and colleagues to continue this discourse on authentic follower theory, again with the express purpose of devising a method to develop authentic employees who can then foster positive, ethical, work environments (Cooper et al., 2005).

References Algera, P. M., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 118!131. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016./j.leaqua.2011.11.010 Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 46, 146!154. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. orgdyn.2012.01.008 Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership development: Building the vital forces in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

44


Avolio, B. J. (2005). Leadership development in balance: MADE/born. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates. Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315!338. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001 Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 801!823. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.003 Avolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authentic followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (1st ed., pp. 325!337). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). An introduction to positive organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (1st ed., pp. 3!13). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Cooper, C., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 475!493. Cooperrider, D. L. (2013, March). The discovery and design of excellent organizations: How appreciative inquiry advances innovation, design thinking, and positive change. Symposium presented at the Drucker School of Management, Claremont, CA. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611!628. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459!474. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350!383. Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343!372. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua. 2005.03.003 George, W. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382!394). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Heidegger, M. (2008). Being and time. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics. (Reprint ed.). Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184!200. Ilies, R., Nahrgang, J., & Morgeson, F. (2007). Leader-member exchange and citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 269!277. Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. LipmanBlumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (1st ed., pp. 5!15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 853!868. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2000). Connective leadership: Managing in a changing world (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.


45

Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 189!202. Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241!258). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. May, D. R., Chan, A. Y. L., Hodges, T. D., & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247!260. Merriam-Webster website. (2013). Retrieved from www.merriam-webster.com Northouse, P. G. (2012). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Sage. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (1st ed.). New York, NY: Sage. Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 298!310. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378028 Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 67!81. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 253!272). New York, NY: Guilford. Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil website. (2013). Principles of transaction transparency. Retrieved from http://www.cvm.gov.br/ingl/inter/cosra/transp-e.asp Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). What’s your story? A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395!417. Silvia, P. J., & Duval, T. S. (2001). Objective self-awareness theory: Recent progress and enduring problems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 230!241. Thomas, D. A., & Kanji, A. (2004). IBM’s diversity strategy: Bridging the workplace and the marketplace. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & Mclean Parks, J. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 17, pp. 215!285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. van Vugt, M., & de Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership in social dilemmas: The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 587!599. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making (1st ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Watts, M. (2003). Kierkegaard (1st ed.). Oxford, UK: Oneworld. Weber, M. A. (2003). The Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism. Mineola, NY: Courier Dover Publications. Yagil, D., & Medler-Liraz, H. (2014). Feel free, be yourself: Authentic leadership, emotional expression, and employee authenticity. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 59!70. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1548051813483833

Chapter 3

A New Conceptual Framework for Authentic Followership Deanna de Zilwa

Abstract Purpose ! This work presents a new conceptual framework for Authentic Followership (AF). AF is a pro-active, engaged and constructively critical form of followership. AF empowers workers, enhancing their strengths and capacities. AF also creates robust, productive partnerships between workers and leaders. These partnerships enhance leadership effectiveness and improve the firm’s performance, increasing firm’s growth and innovation and developing its resilience to adverse events. Design/methodology/approach ! A case for the significance of AF is made, by analysing how and why AF could have prevented, or diminished firms’ financial duress and reputational damage during the Global Financial Crisis. Then it presents a new conceptual framework for AF. AF is composed of three sets of interacting components: Individual, a follower’s psychological capacity for authenticity; Dyadic, the strength of the relationship between the follower and the leader; Organisational, positive organisational culture, norms and political conditions. Findings ! Empirical testing of the AF construct is yet to be undertaken. However, this work identifies the contributions that AF could make to leadership effectiveness and organisational performance and identifies conditions where it is anticipated that AF will not be possible. Originality/value ! The new conceptual framework for AF offers a productive, dynamic view of followership. Hence, it overturns previous conceptualisations of followership as passive, deferential and insignificant. This work presents a strong case of how AF can improve leadership effectiveness and organisational performance. Therefore, the new conceptual framework for AF makes a significant contribution to followership, leadership and organisational performance


48

Deanna de Zilwa studies. This work is also important for firms, as it offers keys to enhance firm’s robustness, improve performance, increase productivity and profit, develop innovative capacities, and strengthen resilience to adverse events. Keywords: Authentic followership; leadership effectiveness; organisational performance

Many years ago Kelley observed that ‘we are convinced that corporations succeed or fail, compete or crumble, on the basis of how well they are led’ (1988, p. 142). Leaders and leadership are important to build, sustain and grow robust firms. Yet to focus solely on leaders and leadership as the key determinant of a firm’s performance, profitability, survival and growth, is an imbalanced perspective. Leaders make decisions, which establish a firm’s strategic objectives and priorities, yet followers undertake the work to achieve these strategic objectives. Kelley continued: ‘organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead, but partly also on the basis of how well their followers follow’ (1988, p. 142). Therefore, it is important to focus attention and work towards enhancing our understanding of followers and followership. Added impetus for the significance of followers and followership comes from the sheer weight of their numbers, ‘followers make up the majority of organizations’ (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, & Bullock, 2009, p. 111). As Popper notes, it is important to recognise the heterogeneity of forms of followership (2011, p. 31). The labels follower and followership are often perceived as pejorative terms, conveying images of ‘… passivity, obedience, and submission (e.g. never asking questions of leaders, excessive agreement with leaders)’ (Hoption, Christie, & Barling, 2012, p. 222). Some followers have internalised ‘passivity, obedience and deference’ as integral to their role and identity, whilst others view ‘their role as largely pro-active and participatory’ (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010, p. 550). This work presents a new conceptual framework for authentic followership making the case that authentic followership enhances the effectiveness of leaders and firms. Authentic followership is grounded in the values of truth and integrity. It involves independent behaviour ‘… owning one’s personal experiences, be they thoughts, emotions, needs, wants, preferences or beliefs’ and according to Harter ‘expressing oneself in ways that are consistent with inner thoughts and feelings’ (Knoll & van Dick, 2013, p. 1). Authentic followership is not self-centred or selfish; rather it involves workers having strong organisational identification, commitment and engagement. It involves workers acting in ways that serve the firm’s objectives for productivity, efficiency, profit and growth, over self-serving interests that advance an individual’s power, prestige or reward. Authentic followership is a proactive, engaged and constructively critical form of followership. Authentic followership creates robust, productive partnerships between workers and leaders thereby enhancing the firm’s organisational effectiveness, strengthening its capacities for resilience, competitiveness, innovation and growth. Authentic followership stands in contrast with other forms of followership: passive followership which Barker stated

A New Conceptual Framework for Authentic Followership

49

was characterised by followers being deferent and obedient (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012, p. 211). Toxic followership where ingratiating followers flatter leaders to advance their careers in firms (Offermann, 2004), or susceptible followership where weak followers comply with destructive leadership (Barbuto, 2000; Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012). I posit that in firms where followers display passive, toxic or susceptible followership then leaders are more likely to make poor decisions — decisions that waste the firm’s resources, damage its reputation and even lead to people losing their jobs.

3.1.

Why Do Leaders and Firms Need Authentic Followership?

Why is authentic followership important for leaders and firms? We need only turn to the recent past, to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) for the answer to this question. In August 2012 Citigroup paid $US 590 million to shareholders as settlement for a class action suit brought against the firm: The shareholder lawsuit, originally filed in November 2007, contended that the bank and some of its former senior executives and directors had failed to disclose the bank’s huge holdings in securities known as collateralized debt obligations that were tied to mortgage securities until November 2007, when it took a multibillion-dollar write-down on them. Citigroup later wrote down the C.D.O.’s by tens of billions of dollars more. The bank had previously tried to conceal the deteriorating value of its holdings by improper accounting practices, the shareholders contended in an amended complaint filed in December 2008. ‘Citigroup used inflated, unreliable and unsupportable marks to keep its C.D.O. — related quasi-Ponzi scheme alive and to give the appearance of a healthy asset base’, the complaint said. … Problems with its C.D.O. business have dogged Citi. … Wednesday’s settlement is on top of the $360 million that the bank has agreed to pay to resolve civil mortgage securities cases brought by federal regulators. … The nation’s third-largest bank by assets, Citi teetered on the brink of collapse in 2008 and was bailed out by the United States government. The bank has repaid the $45 billion in federal assistance that it received. (Silver-Greenberg, 2012) By March 2013 the cost of Citigroup’s settlement of the class action suit against the firm had increased to $730 million (BBC News Business, 2013). Fannie May and Freddie Mac were two GSE’s (Government Sponsored Enterprises) which bought sub-prime mortgage loans on the secondary loan market and then re-sold these loans to Wall Street investors (Fried, 2012). Sub-prime loans are loans given to members of disadvantaged and minority communities who did not have an income, made zero down payment on their housing loan and had no

50

Deanna de Zilwa

documentation (Fried, 2012). The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) a government regulatory authority reported that Fannie May’s CEO’s $90 million compensation (1998!2003) comprised $ 52 million in bonuses noting that ‘by deliberating and intentionally manipulating accounting to hit earnings [EPS] targets, senior management maximized the bonuses and other executive compensation they received at the expense of shareholders’ (Fried, 2012, p. 70). On the September 17, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) placed Fannie May and Freddie Mac into conservatorship (the companies were managed by the government) and the US treasury bailed out Fannie May and Freddie Mac at a cost of $US 317 billion (Cover, 2011). It is self-evident that the damage caused by these events at Citigroup, Fannie May and Freddie Mac1 were profound and enduring; thousands of US citizens lost their jobs, homes and relationships (Fried, 2012; Warner, 2013). Whilst the interconnectedness of global financial markets destablised European economies as well, and some European countries such as Greece and Ireland are yet to recover (Varoufakis, 2011). These vignettes illustrate why firms need authentic followership. Authentic followership serves as a check or balance for poor leadership. When authentic followership operates in firms, followers are actively engaged in decisionmaking processes, thereby ensuring that decisions are taken in a transparent and accountable way. This means that it is far less likely for a firm’s leaders to make clandestine unethical or imprudent decisions. Had authentic followership existed at Citigroup, Fannie May and Freddie Mac then authentic followers would have voiced their concerns about the leader’s dubious decisions and unethical business practices to regulatory authorities, the media, or the firm’s boards. Such actions on the part of authentic followers may have prevented these firms from becoming insolvent, or perhaps have lessened the extent of the damage in these firms and the ensuing damage caused by the GFC. Hence, there is a pressing need for authentic followership in firms. Yet, as we shall discuss, if a firm has a negative organisational culture or destructive leadership practices, workers may be unwilling to take the risk of enacting authentic followership. Workers opt instead for acquiescent silence, withdraw, or detach and distance themselves from the negative events occurring in the firm (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Knoll & van Dick, 2012, 2013).

3.2.

The Emergence of the New Conceptual Framework for Authentic Followership

The new conceptual framework for authentic followership differs from previous conceptualisations of authentic followership (Avolio & Reichar, 2008; Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005; Goffee & Jones, 2006) in three

1

See MacKenzie, Garavan, and Carbery (2011) for further discussion of dysfunctional actions taken by banks and financial industry firms in various nations.


51

important ways. First, each of the previous constructs of authentic followership proposed that the purpose of authentic followership is to develop authentic leadership. Gardner et al. (2005) work proposed that ‘authentic followership is an integral component and consequence of authentic leadership development’ (Gardner et al., 2005). Here Gardner and colleagues contend that followers become authentic followers because authentic leaders model the behaviour patterns required for authenticity; self-awareness and self-regulation (Gardner et al., 2005). Avolio and Reichar’s (2008) conceptualisation of authentic followership comprised three psychological attributes: ‘a sense of psychological ownership (making people feel that they own their processes, product and performance), trust through vulnerability (self-disclosing mistakes), and transparency and psychological safety to offer opinions’. Goffee and Jones’ (2006) view of authentic followership focused on a follower’s needs, arguing that followers had four needs: authenticity, ‘why should I be led by you?’ ‘to feel significant … to have their contributions recognised’, ‘a sense of excitement’ and ‘to feel part of a community’ (pp. 189!196). In contrast the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is based on the premise that developing authentic followership is a valuable enterprise in and of itself. What I mean by this is that when workers are empowered through authentic followership; they become more mature individuals, they gain self-awareness and confidence. Yet at the same time enacting authentic followership enables workers to enhance their capacities to work collaboratively in partnerships with leaders and co-workers. Authentic followership enables workers to learn how to place the needs and goals of the organisation above their own needs; making a pro-active contribution to the firm’s effectiveness. Yet as we shall see authentic followership can also benefit leaders, stopping them from making imprudent decisions, which in turn enhances a firm’s effectiveness. Second, the new conceptual framework for authentic followership posits that followership is a relational concept. Hence understanding and including the nature of the relationship between a leader and follower is integral to the concept of authentic followership. However within the new framework for authentic followership, followers are seen as active agents, they decide whether they will enact authentic followership. As I shall argue, this decision is influenced by the nature of the worker’s relationship with the leader and by the context in which this relationship occurs: the organisational culture and political conditions of the firm. Third, the new conceptual framework for authentic followership posits that the process of authentic followership is dynamic rather than static; it operates as a nonlinear feedback loop rather than as a linear sequence of cause and effect. Precisely what this means becomes clearer as the framework is introduced: for now it is sufficient to note that the new framework for authentic followership is composed of various inter-dependent components and each of these components is constantly evolving and changing. Next some information is provided about the processes used to construct the new conceptual framework. The new conceptual framework for authentic followership follows Kuhn’s approach to developing theory, ‘that theory involves articulating puzzle-solving ideas within a well-understood paradigmatic framework’ (Kilduff, 2006, p. 254).

52

Deanna de Zilwa

The new conceptual framework for authentic followership is also informed by advice on how to build clear and robust theoretical constructs (Suddaby, 2010; Sutton & Staw, 1995; Weick, 1995; Whetten, 1989). This approach to building theory answers four key questions: First, the ‘relevance/significance’ question: why is the conceptual framework important? Second, the ‘contextual’ question: how has this conceptual framework emerged and how does the new conceptual framework relate to existing conceptual frameworks? Third, the ‘definition’ question: what are the constituent elements of the new conceptual framework and why have these particular elements been selected? How is it envisaged that these elements complement and or interact with each other? Fourth, the ‘boundaries’ question: what are the conditions, limitations of the conceptual framework? What are the space/time, structural/cultural conditions necessary for the phenomena to emerge and be sustained?

3.3.

Defining the New Conceptual Framework of Authentic Followership

3.3.1.

Defining Authenticity

The task of presenting a new conceptual framework for authentic followership commences by considering the definition of the term authentic. The etymology of the English word ‘authentic’ can be traced back to the Latin word, ‘authenticus’, which was derived from the Greek word ‘authentikos’ meaning ‘principal, genuine’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). The English word authentic is defined as: ‘of undisputed origin or genuine, based on facts; accurate or reliable; (in existentialist philosophy) relating to or denoting emotionally appropriate, significant, purposive, and responsible mode of human life’ (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013). It is this definition of the term authentic in existentialist philosophy, which provides the most relevant insights for our understanding of authentic followership in contemporary firms. Park (2007),2 an existentialist philosopher who has been influenced by Heidegger’s thinking on authenticity defines authenticity as a process of creating our own ‘projects of being’ whereby we ‘write our own scripts’, gaining autonomy, re-centring and re-integrating our lives transcending normative enculturation’ (Algera & Lips-Wiersma, 2012; Park, 2007, p. 119). Park is arguing that being authentic means thinking critically, making decisions and choices which reconcile tensions between normative pressures at play in a firm such as the pursuit of profit and our personal principles and values. Put differently, Park’s view of authenticity is a call for ethical decision-making and action.3

2

Park (2007) discusses five versions of authentic existence proposed by existentialist thinkers: Albert Camus: Rebelling Against the Absurd, Jean-Paul Satre: Inventing Meanings in a Meaningless World, Martin Heidegger: Confronting Existential Guilt and Death, Soren Kierkegaard: Willing One Thing and Abraham Maslow: Becoming Self-Actualizing. 3 Algera and Lips-Wiersma contest the view that authenticity is intrinsically ethical (2012, p. 125).


53

We can also turn to the discipline of psychology for further insights about the psychological dimensions that inform and facilitate authenticity. Kernis, a social psychologist defined authenticity as ‘the unobstructed operation of one’s true, or core, self in one’s daily enterprise’ (2003, p. 13). Kernis argued that ‘authenticity has at least four discriminable components: awareness, unbiased processing, action and relational orientation’ (p. 13). For Kernis the awareness component of authenticity is about self-knowledge and emotional intelligence: ‘the awareness component refers to having an awareness of and trust in one’s motives, feelings, desires, and selfrelevant cognitions. It includes, but is not limited to, being aware of one’s strengths and weaknesses, trait characteristics, and emotions’ (p. 13). Kernis also suggests that another important aspect of the awareness aspect of authenticity is understanding what he called the ‘figure and ground of our personality’, the multi-faceted nature of our personalities such as masculinity and femininity, extroversion and introversion, dominance and submission (2003, p. 13). Kernis proposed that the second component of authenticity ‘involves the unbiased processing of self-relevant information’ (2003, p. 14). This notion of unbiased processing means ‘not denying, distorting, exaggerating, private knowledge, internal experiences and externally based evaluative information’ (2003, p. 14). Unbiased processing calls for ‘objectivity and acceptance about one’s positive and negative aspects, attributes and qualities’ (Kernis, 2003, p. 14). The third component of authenticity according to Kernis involves our behaviour, acting in ways that are consistent with our true selves. He states, ‘In my view, behaving authentically means acting in accord with one’s values, preference, and needs as opposed to merely to please others or to attain rewards or avoid punishments through acting “falsely”’ (2003, p. 14). Kernis identifies the fourth component of authenticity as being relational, ‘valuing and achieving openness and truthfulness in one’s close relationships’ (p. 15). Expanding on the notion of relational orientation Kernis stated that ‘… [it] involves endorsing the importance for close others to see the real you, good and bad. Towards that end, authentic relations involve a selective process of self-disclosure and the development of mutual intimacy and trust. In short, relational authenticity means being genuine and not “fake” in one’s relationships with close others’ (Kernis, 2003, p. 15).

3.3.2.

Defining Authentic Followership

Authentic followership is motivated by the values of truth and integrity; it involves behaving in a way, which is genuine, ‘true to oneself’. Enacting authentic followership requires high levels of organisational identification, commitment and engagement. Authentic followership occurs when workers pursue actions, which serve the collective interests and objectives of the firm over actions, which serve their own interests. Pro-activity is a key attribute of authentic followership. Authentic followership empowers workers. It involves working in partnerships with the firm’s leaders and managers and co-workers, actively participating in decision-making processes, voicing suggestions, and offering constructive criticism and feedback when leaders and managers plan to implement decisions which followers view as imprudent or

54

Deanna de Zilwa

unethical. Authentic followers need to feel safe and secure that they can challenge the views of the firm’s leaders and managers without fear of retribution or reprisal. Hence authentic followership is the antithesis of conventional conceptualisations of followership where the followership role is viewed as passive, uncritical, deferential and submissive; where followers behave as ‘sheep and yes men’ motivated by a desire to attain a reward, or avoid punishment from the leader (Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1988). This conventional conceptualisation of followership reflects traditional theoretical views about the leadership role in a hierarchical firm (particularly charismatic leadership), where a dominant leader is the sole source of power and authority (Barbuto, 2000; French & Raven, 1959; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). 3.3.3.

Components of the New Conceptual Framework of Authentic Followership

A core premise of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that it is a relational concept. Relational concepts are inherently complex, dynamic and multi-faceted. As such the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is composed of three sets of components interacting to enable authentic followership to emerge and be sustained in firms. The first component, which is necessary for authentic followership, relates to individual followers, to the way the follower thinks and behaves, to his/her psychological capacity, or mindset for authenticity. The second component refers to the nature of the dyadic relationship between the leader and follower. It refers to the follower’s secure attachment to the leader. The third component refers to the nature of the firm’s context or setting, the institutional and organisational characteristics of the firm, positive organisational culture, norms and political conditions, which create the conditions for authentic followership. Each of these three components interacts with each other, as a non-linear feedback loop to create authentic followership; I explore this process later; next the nature of each of the components is outlined. 3.3.3.1. Individual: Follower’s psychological capacity for authenticity The first core component of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that a follower needs to have the psychological capacity, or mindset, to be authentic. Kernis’ (2003) construct of authenticity and its four constituent components are deployed in building the new conceptual framework for authentic followership. There are three reasons why Kernis’ construct of authenticity is relevant and useful for our understanding of authentic followership. First, Kernis’ construct of authenticity offers precise insights about the psychological capacity, or mindset; the way of thinking and the behaviours that a follower needs to be authentic. Second, Kernis’ work defining authenticity is especially helpful for the task of developing a conceptual framework for authentic followership because at its heart, it is the notion that being authentic involves reconciling tensions between one’s true self and environmental contingencies and constraints. This is exactly the situation that many followers experience when they try to enact the authentic followership role; this issue is discussed in more detail later. Third, Kernis’ definition of authenticity has been


55

selected over other definitions of authenticity because the validity and reliability of Kernis’ construct of authenticity and its four component aspects has been established by empirical studies (Kernis & Goldman, 2006, pp. 303!306, 344). While it is necessary for followers to possess the psychological mindset or capacity for authenticity this is not a sufficient condition for authentic followership to emerge and be sustained within a firm. The next section of the chapter outlines why individuals need secure attachment to the firm’s leader(s) and should identify with the firm itself in order for authentic followership to occur. 3.3.3.2. Dyadic relationships: Follower’s secure attachment to the leader/s The second core component of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that a follower needs to have a secure pattern of attachment to the firm and its leader(s).4 Attachment theory was developed by the psychologists Bowlby and Ainsworth to explain differences in the relationships between infants and their mothers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1979; Bowlby, 1982). The central tenet of attachment theory is that infants look to their mothers for protection and security. Infants perceive their mothers as strong and wise. Adults also display patterns of attachment behaviour, although as people mature they recognise that everyone is flawed and fallible. Three types of attachment behaviours between infants and their mothers were identified: secure, ambivalent and avoidant. Following a Freudian perspective whereby a leader is likened to a father (Davidovitz, Mikulincer, Shaver, Izsak, & Popper, 2007; Mayseless, 2010; Popper, 2011), research has shown that leaders often function as attachment figures for followers.5 A secure attachment pattern develops between followers and leaders in firms when followers are confident, they develop trust that the leader will provide a secure base for them, be available and responsive to their needs (Mayseless, 2010; Popper & Mayseless, 2003). An ambivalent or anxious attachment pattern develops when a follower is uncertain about whether the leader will be available and responsive to their needs (Mayseless, 2010). An avoidant attachment pattern occurs when a follower attempts to be emotionally self-sufficient because the leader has rejected them when they sought protection and support (Mayseless, 2010). More recent studies conceptualise attachment according to the dimensions of anxiety or avoidance (Hansbrough, 2012). Given our understanding that authenticity involves being genuine, true to one’s core values, and Kernis’ insights that one needs self-awareness, unbiased processing, action and a relational orientation in order to be authentic, we need to

4 An authentic follower does not have to report directly to the leader in order to develop a secure attachment pattern to the leader. 5 There could be socio-cultural variation in the prevalence of traditional ‘Freudian’ father figure leaders in firms. Also the strength of follower’s attachment to the leader may vary depending on the situation. Authentic followers’ perception of the leader as a father figure is typically subconscious. An authentic follower only becomes conscious of their perception of the leader as a father figure during a crisis when they need security and protection.

56

Deanna de Zilwa

identify the conditions of a close relationship, which are necessary for people in the relationship to be authentic. Reagan, a social psychologist identifies trust, respect, proximity, commitment and empathy as essential conditions for building strong close relationships between people (Regan, 2011). Each of these conditions is associated with secure attachment relationships (Hansbrough, 2012; Popper & Mayseless, 2003; Shalit, Popper, & Zakay, 2010). Hence, we can argue that in order for authentic followership to emerge and be sustained in firms, workers need to be able to develop and sustain secure forms of attachment between themselves and the leader. When workers have a secure pattern of attachment to the leader this enables a deep bond of trust and respect between the worker and the leader to develop. This bond of trust needs to be sustained over time, and not discarded during periods of stress or conflict. This bond of trust acts as a safety net that enables workers to enact authentic followership: to speak plainly, openly and genuinely to the leader and to co-workers, to challenge decisions when he/she feels that they are not prudent and to offer suggestions. In contrast, workers with ambivalent and avoidant attachment patterns to the leader and their co-workers are disengaged and alienated from the leader and their co-workers. They do not identify with the firm believing that it is over-stepping the boundaries of their role as a subordinate to offer feedback, suggestions or criticism to the leader or even to their co-workers. There is another important condition, which is necessary for authentic followership to occur in a firm. In addition to a secure pattern of attachment to the leader, workers need to have a secure pattern of attachment to the firm as well. In other words, there needs to be congruence between the worker’s values and goals and the firm’s values and goals, workers need to identify with the firm. If a worker has ambivalent attachment to their firm and their co-workers, then they will perform the tasks that they are assigned to a minimum standard. Ambivalent workers tend to prioritise their individual needs over the collective needs of the firm. They are unlikely to step beyond what they perceive are the appropriate boundaries or responsibilities of their designated subordinate role. Ambivalent workers tend to disengage with their firm and co-workers, displaying apathy and or cynicism towards their co-workers. Stated crudely workers need to care about their firm to take the time, energy and risks associated with undertaking the authentic followership role. There are two ways that a worker can develop a secure pattern of attachment to the firm. First, through affective organisational commitment, whereby the worker has an emotional attachment to and identification with the firm (Blanchard et al., 2009). Second, through normative organisational commitment, whereby the worker likes the firm because they feel a sense of obligation to like the firm (Blanchard et al., 2009).

3.3.3.3. Organisational level: Positive organisational culture and political conditions The third component of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that the firm needs positive organisational culture, norms and political conditions to


57

enable authentic followership to emerge and be sustained. Here Schein’s definition of organisational culture is employed: … a pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 2010, p. 18) This is not to deny the existence or importance of distinct sub-cultures within a firm. Rather it is argued that the cultural milieu of a firm typically has a dominant subculture and in turn that the dominant sub-cultural group either has a positive, optimistic, productive orientation, or a negative, pessimistic, toxic dysfunctional orientation. Norms are defined as the acceptable and not acceptable rules governing behaviour within the firm (including tacit/implicit and explicit/codified rules) (Bicchieri & Muldoon, 2011). The political conditions of the firm refer to the extent and intensity of conflict and rivalry between individuals and groups within the firm (Mintzberg, 1985). First, we explore how and why a firm’s positive organisational culture, norms and values enable authentic followership to flourish. Second, we investigate how and why negative, toxic dysfunctional culture and political conditions thwart authentic followership. Johns (2006) argues that the context of an organisation (firm) determines the nature of how people behave in the firm. In other words Johns supports an institutional perspective of the firm. According to an institutional perspective, a firm is a social institution; a complex structure of positions, roles, norms and values which influence people’s behaviour (Miller, 2012; Scott, 2008). This conceptual framework for authentic followership also follows an institutional perspective of the firm. Conceptual frameworks for authentic leadership include a firm’s context as an important component of authentic leadership, Avolio and Mhatre’s defined authentic leadership as: … a process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organizational context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviours on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development. (Avolio & Mhatre, 2012, p. 775) There are several aspects of positive organisational culture, norms and values necessary for authentic followership: cohesion and cooperation, and positive emotions such as optimism, hope, strength, trust, and respect. A positive organisational culture generates cohesion in the firm. Cohesion occurs when the firm’s leaders, managers and workers share a sense of purpose; they are committed to working as partners striving to attain the firm’s objectives. This shared sense of purpose between the leader, managers and workers creates the conditions, a safe and secure

58

Deanna de Zilwa

environment in which workers can enact authentic followership. Stephens, Heaphy, and Dutton (2012), researchers working in the area of positive organisational scholarship, developed a conceptual framework known as High-Quality Connections (HQC) which explains how and why strong positive dyadic relationships are developed between leaders and followers and between co-workers Stephens et al. (2012) contend that the partners in a HQC share subjective experiences (positive arousal, energy, regard and respect, mutuality, participation and engagement). These authors also suggest that HQCs have key structural features (emotional caring, the capacity to bend and withstand strain, openness to new ideas and influences). HQCs enable leaders and followers to understand each other’s perspective, to be more aware of the other person’s needs, priorities, constraints, strengths and weaknesses and to communicate in a respectful yet honest manner. HQCs between co-workers and between leaders and followers enable people to work cooperatively. Cooperation is a vital component of authentic followership. Cooperation enables leaders and followers in firms to pool and harness their energy, effort and skills working together to attain the firm’s objectives, rather than dissipating energy working towards different objectives. Therefore it is argued that HQCs incorporating cohesion and cooperation are a key foundation, which enables a follower to develop secure attachment to the leader and to enact authentic followership. An important aspect of Stephens, Heaphy, and Dutton’s (2012) conceptualisation of HQC is the notion of emotional contagion, defined by Schoenwolf as ‘how a person or group of workers unwittingly or explicitly influences the attitudes of another person or group’ (p. 390). Just as an influenza virus travels via an office’s air-conditioning system infecting workers, emotional contagion or affective state (emotions, mood, stress levels) of co-workers, leaders and managers influences those they work with (Rhee & Yoon, 2012). This affective state can be either positive or negative. Positive emotions such as optimism, hope, strength, trust, and respect play a pivotal role in enabling authentic followership to occur. We can identify three ways that positive emotions facilitate authentic followership. First, positive emotions create synergies between co-workers and leaders and followers. These synergies between people build HQCs, creating a shared sense of purpose, which enables people to work cooperatively together towards attaining the firm’s objectives (Rhee & Yoon, 2012; Sekerka, Vacharkulksemsuk, & Fredrickson, 2012; Sennett, 2012). Second, positive emotions assist the development of authentic followership because when followers focus on their strengths and achievements, their team’s strengths and the firm’s collective accomplishments, they are energised and motivated to work hard to attain performance objectives (Sekerka et al., 2012; West, Patera, & Carsten, 2009). Positivity also enhances follower’s self-esteem, providing confidence to tackle new tasks, and improve productivity (Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009; Tse & Dasborough, 2008). Frederickson (2001) developed a model of transformative cooperation in organisations known as the broaden and build theory of positive emotions. Unlike typical organisational development models which work from a deficit paradigm aimed at fixing problems in a firm, the broaden and build approach seeks to enhance the capacities of individual workers and entire firms by expanding previous successes


59

(Sekerka et al., 2012). Third, positive emotions strengthen leaders and followers capacity for resilience to adverse events, to withstand stress and strain (Caza & Milton, 2012). When leaders and followers have developed the skills to adapt to and actually grow stronger through adverse events, this enhances a firm’s capacity to build resilience, surviving and thriving environmental challenges which cause weaker firms to decline becoming less effective and profitable (C. Lengnick-Hall, Beck, & Lengnick-Hall, 2011). Conversely when a firm’s organisational culture is predominately negative this inhibits and sometimes even prohibits authentic followership. Negative organisational culture typically manifests itself in firms in two forms, both of which thwart authentic followership: first, as toxic, destructive leadership, second, as toxic dysfunctional organisational culture with intense political conditions, rivalry and conflict between groups and individuals. Toxic, destructive leadership refers to leadership which is perceived by followers as harmful to their psychological or organisational well-being (Pelletier, 2010). Perception is the key word here. As Lipman-Blumen (2006) observes ‘one person’s toxic leader maybe another person’s hero’. Toxic, destructive leadership can take different forms such as abusive leadership where leaders display hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviours towards subordinates, or control subordinates through fear, intimidation or coercion (Pelletier, 2010). Narcissistic leadership6 is another form of leadership which can have a detrimental impact on followers and organisations (Ouimet, 2010; Stein, 2013). Narcissistic leadership usually ‘involves dominance, grandiosity, arrogance, entitlement, and the selfish pursuit of pleasure’ (Padilla et al., 2007, p. 181). A narcissistic ‘leadership style is typically autocratic, demanding unquestioning obedience’ (Padilla et al., 2007, p. 181; Rosenthal & Pittinsky, 2006 pp. 618!620). However, some narcissistic leaders use charisma and charm to seduce and manipulate susceptible followers — followers who lack psychological maturity, who place the leader on a pedestal, uncritically enacting his/her orders even when these orders may be ill-advised or unethical, such as ostracising out-group members (Maccoby, 2000; Padilla et al., 2007). If a firm’s leaders adopt abusive leadership, or an autocratic form of narcissistic leadership then authentic followership is not possible. Enacting authentic followership requires workers to have a secure pattern of attachment to the leader. However, workers are unlikely to develop secure attachment to a destructive leader. In fact workers are more likely to detach from and avoid a destructive leader, thereby decreasing the chances of authentic followership occurring. Also, as noted for workers to enact authentic followership they need to have the confidence and security that they can voice their views, offer suggestions, or criticism of a leader’s views or decisions without fear of retribution or punishment. Yet under the scenario of destructive leadership, the default behaviour for workers is silence, some may even opt to leave the firm. Even if workers identify

6 Stein observes that narcissistic leadership has a Janus like quality, in some situations or at given points of time it can be a constructive form of leadership whilst at other points of time or in other situations it can be destructive (2013, p. 283).

60

Deanna de Zilwa

problems within the firm and have suggestions about how these issues could be addressed; they are unwilling to take the risk of voicing their views for fear of being ridiculed, marginalised as out-group members, demoted or losing their job (KishGephart, Detert, Trevi, & Edmondson, 2009; Knoll & van Dick, 2012, 2013). Whilst under the countervailing scenario when a narcissistic leader uses charisma and charm to seduce and manipulate workers, authentic followership is also unlikely to occur. This is because these susceptible followers are either infatuated with the leader and hence totally compliant (conformers), or (colluders) acolytes whose values and goals are congruent with the leader’s, or opportunists who determine that they can advance their careers by colluding with the leader (Padilla et al., 2007; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Negative organisational culture potentially inhibits workers from enacting authentic followership. If negativity spreads deeply and broadly throughout the firm and endures over the long term, then it can totally prohibit workers from enacting authentic followership. We can identify a continuum of negative organisational culture that can occur within a firm. Negative contagion is situated at the less extreme end of this continuum; at the mid-point of the continuum is organisational dysfunction and at the most extreme end of the continuum negativity takes the form of organisational miasma. A negative contagion or affective state refers to the situation where a sense of despondency, defeat and hopelessness prevails throughout the firm, influencing other workers and the firm’s leader/s (Dasborough, Ashkanasy, Tee, & Tse, 2009; Stephens et al., 2012). It is even possible for an individual worker with negative affect and behaviours (withholding effort, violating inter-personal norms) to have a detrimental impact on the motivation, performance, creativity and cooperation of an entire team (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006). Then negative contagion spreads from one team to another ‘infecting’ the entire firm (Keyes & Annas, 2009). Under the influence of negative contagion workers de-identify with their teams and firms. These workers are alienated and disengaged from the firm. They begin to operate as individuals, performing the tasks allocated to them in their position description yet they will not step beyond the boundaries of their formal role (Felps et al., 2006). Under this scenario of negative contagion workers are unlikely to enact authentic followership. Put crudely, workers simply could not be bothered enacting authentic followership, as they see little chance that any positive outcome could occur even if they were to voice their views, suggestions or constructive criticism about a leader’s decision (Knoll & van Dick, 2013). Indeed the corrosive affect of pronounced negative contagion would probably result in most workers assuming that if they were to enact authentic followership this would result in a detrimental outcome for them, such as being ostracised from a group, allocated an unfavourable task, or even losing their job. A dysfunctional organisational culture manifests itself in firms in different ways (Balthazard, Cooke, & Potter, 2006; MacKenzie et al., 2011). Some firms adopt an organisational structure, which embeds and enables a dysfunctional organisational culture. This can occur when a firm creates divisions or departments according to function or expertise; workers begin to identify with the sub-unit’s goals, objectives


61

and priorities rather than with those of the entire firm, so the various parts of the firm are effectively working at cross-purposes to each other (Kahn, 2012). Firms employ a range of approaches and strategies in an attempt to fix this type of dysfunction: re-organisation of divisions, mergers, splits, replacing leaders, changing reporting relationships, training programs for excellence, quality assurance, teambuilding, hiring consultants to improve communication, motivation, changing reward systems (Kahn, 2012). However, in some cases despite the firm allocating substantial resources to these interventions, dysfunctional patterns of behaviour remain unchanged. This occurs when the dysfunctional behaviour serves a functional purpose for individuals, or groups often at a subconscious, or tacit level such as when a leader wants to develop their staff yet they cannot delegate tasks to others because they are concerned about becoming dependent on others (Kahn, 2012). Dysfunctional behaviours can be a consequence of a firm/organisation entering a period of decline. (Cameron, Whetten, & Kim, 1987, p. 128) identified 12 dysfunctional behaviours displayed by colleges and universities in the USA encountering decline (reduced revenue, declining enrolments): 1. Centralisation — decision-making is passed upward, participation decreases, control is emphasised. 2. No long term planning — crises and short-term needs drive out strategic planning. 3. Innovation curtailed — no experimentation, risk aversion, and scepticism about no-core activities. 4. Scapegoating — leaders are blamed for the pain and uncertainty. 5. Resistance to change — conservatism and turf protection lead to rejection of new alternatives. 6. Turnover — the most competent leaders tend to leave first, causing leadership anaemia. 7. Low morale — few needs are met, and infighting is predominant. 8. Loss of slack resources — uncommitted resources are used to cover operating expenses. 9. Fragmented pluralism — special interest groups organise and become more vocal. 10. Loss of credibility — leaders lose the confidence of the subordinates. 11. Non-prioritised cuts — attempts to ameliorate conflict lead to attempts to equalise cutbacks. 12. Conflict — Competition and in fighting for control predominate when resources are scarce. It is important to recognise that there are two forms of conflict, which can occur between individuals and groups in firms. Relational or inter-personal conflict occurs when people do not like each other or hold divergent values. Task conflict which occurs when people have a difference of opinion about the how tasks should be undertaken, the significance or priorities of tasks, or the amount of resources which should be allocated to undertake various tasks (Felps et al., 2006). The two forms

62

Deanna de Zilwa

of conflict have a significantly different impact on a firm. Task conflict is usually constructive for firms as it reinforces people’s engagement with and commitment to their work, enhances the quality of decision-making, and forces people to critically evaluate their assumptions about how work should be undertaken (Felps et al., 2006). In contrast relational conflict can have an extremely detrimental impact on the productivity, efficiency and effectiveness of a firm. If relational conflict becomes extremely intense, is sustained over the long term, or engages bystanders and others not involved in an original dispute, when it surpasses a tipping point moving beyond conflict and enters the realm of organisational politics,7 power plays and game playing it has the potential to be severely destructive for firms (Mintzberg, 1985). The notion of miasma refers to an especially pernicious dysfunctional state for a firm (Gabriel, 2012). Miasma is a state of rottenness and decay. Like a highly contagious infection, miasma spreads throughout a firm or organisation destroying workers self-esteem, causing depression, fear and paralysis, workers become zombies, the living dead (Gabriel, 2012). Symptoms of miasma include ‘… an experience of pollution and uncleanliness, an incapacitating ethos of self-criticism, an inability to maintain boundaries between public and private lives, a silencing of organizational stories, a compulsive scapegoating and, above all, a paralysis of resistance’ (Gabriel, 2012, p. 1139). According to Gabriel an organisation enters a state of miasma when it undergoes a rapid and significant transformation, when a new leadership regime is appointed and previously valued workers are discarded (Gabriel, 2012). I take a slightly different view from Gabriel. The essential symptoms of miasma are severe depression, negativity, paralysis and inertia: workers are aware that their firm is ‘severely ill’, that its culture is profoundly toxic, yet they have no idea what they should do to fix the problems and lack the motivation to even try to fix the problems. Hence, I contend that a firm’s workers are more likely to encounter miasma at the onset of periods of significant decline in performance rather than at the point of organisational transformation, when an intervention has occurred and actions have been taken to commence recovery and rebuilding. Each of these negative, toxic, dysfunctional forms of organisational culture is not conducive for authentic followership as they cause workers to become defensive and self-protective. The first action of workers who adopt a self-protective mode is that their orientation turns inward; their first priority is making decisions and taking actions, which serve their interests above those of their team, department or firm. Yet, as we have observed, a necessary condition for authentic followership is that workers have an external orientation, that they prioritise the firm’s needs over their individual needs. We also observed that there is an inherent danger and risk associated with enacting authentic followership; by voicing concerns with a leader’s decisions, or the strategic choices made by a group of experts, or even offering suggestions for improving operations, new products, services, technologies or

7 Mintzberg identifies 13 types of political games played in organisations and provides a comprehensive account of the lifecycle of these games from impetus, development through to resolution, and discusses the impact of these games for these organisations (1985, pp. 134!139).


63

developing new markets, the subordinate worker is drawing attention to themselves. When a firm has a positive, open organisational culture this type of initiative by a worker is valued as a worthwhile contribution, which can enhance the firm’s efficiency, effectiveness, performance and profit. However if the firm has a negative, toxic dysfunctional culture, even if the worker’s suggestion has intrinsic merit, or the constructive criticism offered could improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the firm’s operations senior ranks within the firm view the worker unfavourably as a ‘troublemaker’, who has ‘ideas above his/her station’. The outspoken worker’s ideas are ignored, and if he/she persists to press his/her views, then he/she is punished or scapegoated in some way: allocated an unfavourable task, sent to an unattractive location, set impossible deadlines, marginalised by co-workers, denied opportunities for advancement, or even dismissed. Hence, the firm in the grip of negativity and toxic dysfunction is likely to pursue sub-optimal or ill-advised strategic choices, which can lead to huge deficits and severely damage the firm’s reputation, as was the case for Citibank, Fannie May and Freddie Mac. When a negative, toxic dysfunctional culture becomes entrenched in a firm, it also restricts the firm’s opportunities for future innovation, growth and expansion, as creative, energetic workers seek employment with competitors where they have the opportunity to be pro-active, authentic followers, to voice their ideas, offer constructive criticism to leaders and managers and pursue new initiatives.

3.4.

How the Components Interact to Create Authentic Followership

The new conceptual framework for authentic followership is conceived as a process of continuous interaction between its three constituent sets of components: (1) Individual: follower’s psychological capacity for authenticity; (2) Dyad: follower’s secure attachment to the leader; and (3) Organisational: positive organisational culture and political conditions. Hence, the new conceptual framework for authentic followership contrasts with Avolio and Reichar’s (2008) and Goffee and Jones’ (2006) conceptualisation of authentic followership in terms of a follower’s psychological attributes and needs (see previous discussion for details). It is acknowledged that in order for authentic followership to occur an individual follower must have the psychological capacity to be authentic. It is self-evident that if a worker lacks the psychological capacity to be authentic then it is not possible for them to enact authentic followership. Yet in order for a worker to enact authentic followership there are two other conditions that are essential. A worker must have a secure pattern of attachment to the leader to have the safety8 and

8 Avolio and Reichar (2008, p. 336) include psychological safety as one of the dimensions of their construct of authentic followership; however, they state that leaders create psychological safety for followers. In contrast I propose that a follower’s sense of psychological safety emerges from their secure attachment to the leader, that is, from the strength and security of the dyadic relationship between the follower and the leader.

64

Deanna de Zilwa

security that they can enact authentic followership, voice suggestions and offer constructive criticism about a leader’s decisions, without reprisal or retribution. Additionally in order for workers to enact authentic followership the firm’s organisational culture must be positive and there should be an absence of negative political conditions. This organisational context enables and supports authentic followership. It values the contribution that authentic followership makes to enhancing the firm and the leader’s effectiveness. The process of authentic followership should have a cyclical effect; once workers observe that leaders and managers value those who take the initiative to enact authentic followership, this should motivate and encourage other workers to enact authentic followership as well. Another important feature of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that the process of interaction between the three sets of components that comprise authentic followership is dynamic, rather than static; this interactive process is a non-linear feedback loop (Mitelton-Kelly, 2003; Stacey, 1996). Figure 3.1 illustrates how authentic followership occurs in a firm. The following case study of recent events for Apple and Samsung illustrates how and why the dynamism of the

Figure 3.1:

Authentic followership.


65

components that comprise authentic followership influences workers decision to enact authentic followership: The International Data Corporation (IDC) released a report, which found that the Western European mobile phone market shrunk in the first quarter of 2013 due to a slowdown in smart phone shipments. Apple continues to lose ground while Android continues to ‘dominate the smart phone landscape’. IDC found that Apple’s iOS dropped to 20 percent market — a year-over-year drop of 11 percent. Apple shipped 6.2 million devices this quarter, which is down from 7 million this time last year. … An IDC analyst attributed these trends to the European economic climate. He said the region is now entering the second wave of smart phone adoption, which is primarily motivated by cost. Europe has been ‘mired in recession’ for the past couple of years, and consumers are less willing to shell out the big bucks for ‘fancy gadgets’ when they can access the same apps from cheaper devices. People that already have higher-end smart phones are also more prone to holding on to them for longer periods of time rather than regularly trading up. … Smart phone shipments increased by 12 percent year-over-year to 31.6 million devices this quarter, but this is the lowest growth rate this market has seen since 2004. Samsung shipped 14.3 million of those phones, which is more than Apple, Sony, LG and Nokia combined. (Grant, 2013) Apple’s loss of market share and corresponding loss of revenue could result in its organisational culture being less positive than it was when Apple held the dominant position in the smart phone market in Western Europe. At this time Apple was ‘the world’s most valuable publicly traded company. Its shares hit at a record price of $705. 07 on 21 September 21, 2012 when the iPhone 5 went on sale, then declined to $398.11 on April 18, 2013’, (Daily Mail Reporter, 2013). In contrast, Samsung could be more likely to have a positive organisational culture and an absence of negative political conditions as the company continues its upward trend in the Western European smart phone market, increasing its profit relative to Apple. Under this scenario, it is more likely that Samsung’s workers could enact authentic followership than Apple’s workers. Samsung’s success with its product innovation in the smart phone market could act as a catalyst, motivating and encouraging workers to voice further ideas for product innovations or other suggestions, which will enhance the firm’s growth. When the value of a company declines as significantly as Apple’s has, firms typically reduce their operating expenses, and one of the most common ways of achieving this outcome is by reducing the number of staff employed by the firm. Therefore, Apple’s workers could go into self-preservation mode, focusing on ensuring that they keep their jobs. They are unlikely to take the risk of enacting authentic followership for fear that the firm’s leaders and managers could view them as being too outspoken and so they could be targeted for retrenchment.

66

Deanna de Zilwa

Another key aspect of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership is that it includes the strength and security of the dyadic relationship between the leader and the follower. The quality of the relationship between the leader and follower is crucial for a worker to enact authentic followership. A worker may have the psychological capacity for authenticity and the firm may have a positive organisational culture and an absence of negative political conditions; however, if the leader adopts a dysfunctional leadership style (abusive or narcissistic leadership) then the worker is unlikely to enact authentic followership because the worker does not have secure attachment to the leader, see previous discussion for details. Of course it must be acknowledged that the nature of the relationship between a leader and a follower varies according to the individuals concerned. As noted earlier, one person’s toxic leader maybe another person’s hero (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). Just as there are a plethora of leadership styles — charismatic, transactional, transformational, servant and authentic, to name a few (Bryman, Collinson, Grint, Jackson, & Uhl-Bien, 2011), there are also different followership styles (Barbuto, 2000; Thoroughgood et al., 2012). Essentially it is easier for a follower to develop a secure pattern of attachment to a leader when there is a strong degree of synergy in values, goals, work and communication styles between them (Hansbrough, 2012; Mayseless, 2010; Popper, 2011; Shalit et al., 2010). Given that authentic leadership involves a similar set of behaviours to authentic followership, including: … self-awareness, which is accurate knowledge of one’s strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncratic qualities; relational transparency, which involves genuine representation of the self-to others; balanced processing, which is the collection and use of relevant, objective information, particularly that which challenges one’s prior beliefs; and an internalized moral perspective, which refers to self-regulation and selfdetermination, rather than acting in accordance with situational demands. (Gardner et al., 2005; Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008) cited in (Caza & Jackson, 2011, p. 354) We can predict that it may be easier for workers to enact authentic followership when their leader employs authentic leadership; empirical testing is required to verify this prediction. However, as the present study has argued the firm would also need to have a positive organisational culture and an absence of negative political conditions in order for workers to enact authentic followership. Which brings us to the last issue discussed in this chapter — the boundaries of the new conceptual framework for authentic followership, when is authentic followership not possible?

3.5.

Under What Conditions Is Authentic Followership Not Possible?

This work has presented a strong case that authentic followership makes a positive contribution to a leader’s decision-making and to a firm’s organisational effectiveness. However, it is also important to recognise that there are some conditions under which authentic followership is unlikely to occur. Before identifying and


67

discussing these conditions a caveat is required. At this stage the conditions, which are likely to inhibit or even prohibit authentic followership in firms, are offered as tentative predictions; these predictions will need to be tested empirically to establish whether they are valid and reliable. The first condition where it is predicted that workers will encounter challenges enacting authentic followership is when a firm is situated in a nation with a high power distance culture between leaders and workers. Power distance refers to ‘the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally’ (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 46). Hofstede’s model of power distance9 was derived from an empirical study of IBM employees in similar positions in fifty countries and three multi-country regions, subsequently expanded to 74 countries (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). From this work Hofstede constructed a Power Distance Inventory (PDI) classifying the relative positions of countries, ranking them from high power distance to low power distance (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Malaysia ranked highest on the PDI and Austria the lowest (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, p. 43). Hofstede found that in high power distance situations ‘superiors and subordinates consider each other as existentially unequal’ … in this context hierarchy is pronounced … ‘subordinates expect to be told what to do’; they are dependent on their superiors (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, pp. 45!46, 55). In low power distance situations ‘subordinates and superiors consider each other as existentially equal; the hierarchical system is just an inequality of roles, established for convenience; and roles may be changed …’, workers are independent from their bosses (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005, pp. 45, 56). It follows that if a firm is situated in a nation with a high power distance between workers and leaders, then workers could be less likely to enact authentic followership. This is because enacting authentic followership involves speaking up voicing suggestions, or offering constructive criticism about a leader’s decisions. These acts violate the cultural norm of dependence, deference, passivity and respect to authority figures in high power distance cultures. Of course individual workers may not subscribe to the traditional cultural power distance norm of their society (Farh, Hackett, & Liang, 2007; Lee, Pillutla, & Law, 2000). Whilst worker’s with a higher level of education or professional status will probably be more inclined to enact authentic followership, even if they work for firms situated in countries, which traditionally have a high power distance culture (Hofstede & Hofstede, 2005). Extrapolating from Hofstede’s notion of power distance it would be interesting to empirically test whether there are other aspects of power distance such as gender, minority status or age, which have a salient impact on the enactment of authentic followership. It would also be interesting to test whether other variables such as industry type, size, structure or age of the firm influence the enactment of authentic followership. My prediction is that such studies will find less evidence of authentic followership in firms or organisations with traditional hierarchical power and authority structures such as the military, universities or churches. 9 Hofstede’s model of power distance was initially published in 1983, it has been verified by other researchers (Hofstede & Bond, 1984; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).

68

Deanna de Zilwa

The second situation where it is predicted that workers will encounter difficulties enacting authentic followership is when the firm is experiencing a decline in its performance. Enacting authentic followership requires assertiveness, as noted there is an inherent risk associated with taking on this role, and this risk is heightened when the firm encounters challenging market conditions. When a firm’s profit is reduced and its leaders seek to reduce expenditure and contract its operations, workers tend to go into self-preservation mode, to retreat and behave more conservatively. Yet it is precisely in this situation when authentic followership is required. This scenario highlights what is possibly the biggest challenge surrounding authentic followership: how can firms and their leaders demonstrate that authentic followership is valued? How can they encourage and support workers to enact authentic followership?

3.6.

Conclusion

This work establishes a deeper and broader understanding of authentic followership. Authentic followership benefits workers. It empowers and energises workers. It recognises and values the contribution that workers make to firms. Authentic followership enhances worker’s assertiveness, and capacity for independent critical thinking. Yet at the same time authentic followership develops a worker’s capacity to work cooperatively and productively with the firm’s leaders and co-workers as they strive to enhance their firm’s effectiveness, performance and profit. Authentic followership enables workers to recognise when and how to place the needs of others, the firm, above their own needs. Authentic followership has the potential to build robust, resilient and innovative firms. It has the potential to enhance the effectiveness of leaders, enabling leaders to make prudent, ethical decisions. It is my hope that others see the potential of authentic followership and that its potential benefits are realised.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Dr Guy Curtis, School of Psychology, Murdoch University and Professor David Butler, School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University for feedback on this work. Thanks to Professor Peter McKiernan, Dean of the School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University for a research grant which assisted this work.

References Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1979). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Algera, P., & Lips-Wiersma, M. (2012). Radical authentic leadership: Co-creating the conditions under which all members of the organization can be authentic. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 118!131.


69

Avolio, B., & Mhatre, K. (2012). Advances in theory and research on authentic leadership. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Avolio, B., & Reichar, R. (2008). The rise of authentic followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Balthazard, P., Cooke, R., & Potter, R. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization: Capturing the behavioral norms that form organizational culture and drive performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 709!732. Barbuto, J. (2000). Influence triggers: A framework for understanding follower compliance. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(3), 365!387. BBC News Business. (2013, May 16). Ciitgroup agrees $730 m legal settlement with investors. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21839793 Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Social norms. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Blanchard, A., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(2), 111!131. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664!678. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x Bryman, A., Collinson, D., Grint, K., Jackson, B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2011). The sage handbook of leadership. London: Sage. Cameron, K., Whetten, D., & Kim, M. (1987). Organizational dysfunctions of decline. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 126. Carsten, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Follower beliefs in the co-production of leadership. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 220(4), 210!220. Carsten, M., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B., Patera, J., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543!562. Caza, A., & Jackson, B. (2011). Authentic leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K. Grint, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership. London: Sage. Caza, B., & Milton, L. (2012). Resilience at work. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 895!908). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cover, M. (2011). True cost of fannie, freddie bailouts: $317 billion, CBO says. Retrieved from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/true-cost-fannie-freddie-bailouts-317-billion-cbo-says. Accessed on May 16, 2013. Daily Mail Reporter. (2013, July 1). Apple’s rotten day: Tech giant no longer world’s most valuable public company after iPhone and iPad rumors wipe $22 billion from its value in 24 hours. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2311009/Appleloses-worlds-valuable-company-crown-shares-slump-400-time-16-months.html Dasborough, M., Ashkanasy, N., Tee, E., & Tse, H. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 571!585. Retrieved from http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.04.009 Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 632. Farh, J., Hackett, R., & Liang, J. (2007). Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support-employee outcome relationships in China: Comparing

70

Deanna de Zilwa

the effects of power distance and traditionality. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 715!729. Felps, W., Mitchell, T., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175!222. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27005-9 French, J., & Raven, B. (1959). Social bases of power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150!167). Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press. Frederickson, B. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218!226. Fried, J. (2012). Who really drove the economy into the Ditch? New York, NY: Algora Publishing. Gabriel, Y. (2012). Organizations in a state of darkness: Towards a theory of organizational miasma. Organization Studies, 33(9), 1137!1152. Gardner, W., Avolio, B., Luthans, F., May, D., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343!372. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you? Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Grant, R. (2013). Apple loses market share in Western Europe, India as consumers choose cheaper devices Venture Beat. Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/26/ apple-loses-market-share-in-western-europe-india-as-consumers-choose-cheaper-devices/. Accessed on July 1, 2013. Hansbrough, T. (2012). The construction of a transformational leader: Follower attachment and leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1533!1549. Hinkin, T., & Schriesheim, C. (1989). Development and application of new scales to measure the French and Raven (1959) bases of social power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 150!167. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15(4), 417!433. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind — Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hoption, C., Christie, A., & Barling, J. (2012). Submitting to the follower label. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 220(4), 221!230. House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The globe study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386!408. Kahn, W. (2012). The functions of dysfunction: Implications for organizational diagnosis and change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 64(3), 225!241. Kelley, R. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 141!148. Kernis, M. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1!26. Kernis, M., & Goldman, B. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 283!357). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Keyes, C., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197!201. Kilduff, M. (2006). Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 252!255.


71

Kirkman, B., Chen, G., Farh, J., Chen, Z., & Lowe, K. (2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 744!764. Kish-Gephart, J., Detert, J., Trevi, L., & Edmondson, A. (2009). Silenced by fear: The nature, sources, and consequences of fear at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29(0), 163!193. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.07.002 Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2012). Do I hear the whistle: A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 1!14. Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Authenticity, employee silence, prohibitive voice, and the moderating effect of organizational identification. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(4), 346!360. Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26(4), 685!704. Lengnick-Hall, C., Beck, T., & Lengnick-Hall, M. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21(3), 243!255. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians — and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 69!77. MacKenzie, C., Garavan, T., & Carbery, R. (2011). Understanding and preventing dysfunctional behavior in organizations: Conceptualizing the contribution of human resource development. Human Resource Development Review, 10(4), 346!380. Mayseless, O. (2010). Attachment and the leader, a follower relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(2), 271!280. Miller, S. (2012). Social institutions. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 133!154. Mitelton-Kelly, E. (2003). Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Offermann, L. (2004). When followers become toxic. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 54!60. Ouimet, G. (2010). Dynamics of narcissistic leadership in organizations: Towards an integrated research model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 25(7), 713!726. Oxford Dictionaries. (2013). The Oxford dictionary. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries. com/definition/american_english/authentic?q = authentic. Accessed on January 21, 2013. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176!194. Park, J. (2007). Becoming more authentic: The positive side of existentialism. Minneapolis, MN: Existential Books. Pelletier, K. (2010). Leader toxicity: An empirical investigation of toxic behavior and rhetoric. Leadership, 6(4), 373!389. Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N., & Seligman, M. (2009). Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 161!172. Popper, M. (2011). Toward a theory of followership. Review of general psychology, 15(1), 29. Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(1), 41!65. Regan, P. (2011). Close relationships. New York, NY: Routledge. Rhee, S., & Yoon, H. (2012). Shared positive affect in workgroups. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

72

Deanna de Zilwa

Rosenthal, S., & Pittinsky, T. (2006). Narcissistic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 617!633. Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Scott, W. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sekerka, L., Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B. (2012). Positive emotions: Broadening abd building upward spirals of sustainable enterprise. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sennett, R. (2012). Together: The rituals, pleasures and politics of cooperation. London: Allen Lane. Shalit, A., Popper, M., & Zakay, D. (2010). Followers’ attachment styles and their preference for social or for personal charismatic leaders. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 458!472. Silver-Greenberg, J. (2012). Citigroup in $590 million settlement of subprime lawsuit. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/citigroup-in590-million-settlement-of-subprime-lawsuit/ Stacey, R. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organizations. San Francisco, CA: BerrettKoehler. Stein, M. (2013). When does narcissistic leadership become problematic? Dick Fuld at Lehman Brothers. Journal of management inquiry, 22(3), 282!293. Stephens, J., Heaphy, E., & Dutton, J. (2012). High quality connections. In K. Cameron & G. Spreitzer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 385!399). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Suddaby, R. (2010). Editor’s comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 346!357. Sutton, R., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371!384. Thoroughgood, C., Padilla, A., Hunter, S., & Tate, B. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 897!917. Tse, H., & Dasborough, M. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group and Organization Management, 33, 194!215. Varoufakis, Y. (2011). The global minotour: America, the true origins of the financial crisis and the future of the world economy. London: Zed Books. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89!126. Warner, M. (2013). The global economy in crisis: Towards a new paradigm? Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(2), 157!161. Weick, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 385!390. West, B., Patera, J., & Carsten, M. (2009). Team level positivity: Investigating positive psychological capacities and team level outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 249!267. Whetten, D. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490!495.

Chapter 4

The Fluid Nature of Follower and Leader Roles Susan D. Baker, Susan A. Stites-Doe, Christopher J. Mathis and William E. Rosenbach

Abstract Purpose ! The purpose of this chapter is to explore the behavioral qualities that followers share in common with leaders and to explore associated personal and organizational outcomes when followers perceive themselves to be ready to take on leadership roles. Design/methodology/approach ! Prior research about characteristics of effective followers was reviewed to inform the development of a conceptual framework. A model is presented, as are testable propositions that focus on behavioral qualities that we argue are central to the formation of effective leader!follower relationships. Findings ! Prior research suggests that followers view themselves as having both effective follower and exemplary leader performance characteristics (Baker, Mathis, & Stites-Doe, 2011). We accept the idea that “follower” and “leader” roles are enacted by people; thus, we posit that with appropriate skills and development, both followers and leaders can enact each of these roles. Further, we propose that followers’ ability to swap roles with their leaders is predicated on their perceptions of their ability to do so; thus, followers’ self perceptions may be said to predict leader emergence. We explore followers’ relationship-building behaviors and their performance skill sets to learn about the effective utility of each. Lastly, we propose that followers’ trust in their leaders is key to their development of relationship-building skills. Originality/value ! The chapter extends prior research on the leader!follower relationship. It suggests paths that followers may take to encourage their own emergence as leaders and introduces trust as an important antecedent. Keywords: Followership; leader!follower relationship; leadership; role sharing; trust; leader emergence


74

4.1.

Susan D. Baker et al.

Introduction Leadership is grounded in a relationship. In its simplest form, it is a tripod — a leader or leaders, followers, and the common goal they want to achieve. None of those three elements can survive without the others. (Bennis, 2007)

Bennis’ (2007) view of followers, leaders, and a shared common goal as the essence of the leadership process captures a shift in leadership theory that highlights the role of followers. During the past century, a small chorus of scholars voiced their views that followers were a critical component in the leadership process, yet, with few exceptions, leadership theorists did not heed their call. Research in leadership streams remained “overly leader-centered” (Shamir, 2007) with a focus on the leader’s role and how leaders could best maximize followers’ contributions. In the past two decades especially, epic organizational failures and tarnished leader reputations in every sphere of society — business, politics, religion (Bennis, 2008), military (Buel, 2012), and nonprofit (Attkisson, 2009a, 2009b; “Scandals”, 2013) — have caused us to question the nature of leadership. In our search for understanding, we turn to other moving parts in the intricate leadership process. Attention to the role that followers play in organizations provides optimism for the development of expanded views of leadership. Although interest in followers began as early as the 1920s with lectures on business and management by Mary Parker Follett (1949), the antecedents to followership are rooted in the disciplines of sociology and psychology, particularly in theories about social exchange, small groups, and attribution (Baker, 2007) that grew during the 1950s. For example, social exchange theory focused on interactions between a group and its members, weighing the costs of an individual’s contribution to the group against benefits received from the group. Mutual benefits were thought to be the basis of the exchange (Bass, 1990). Small groups served as a starting point for the study of the relationships between group leaders and group members (Homans, 1974). Such interactions were then extrapolated to have meaning for formal and professional work relationships between leaders and followers. Homans (1958) helped to lay the foundation for social exchange theory by proposing that social behavior often builds on an influence process whereby the exchange of both material goods and intangible goods, such as approval, motivate behavior of both leaders and followers. Hollander (1974) and Hollander and Julian (1969) extended this work, proposing theories about the implicit nature of the social exchange processes and their application to leaders and followers. They described a transactional exchange in which leaders provide benefits, such as clear task direction, and followers respond with greater respect for and responsiveness to the leader (Baker, 2007). Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory, which developed in the 1970s, initially focused on the relationship within the leader!follower dyad. The research stream evolved over time, and subsequent works called for research into the three domains of leader, follower, and the relationship, at multiple levels of analysis (individual, dyads, groups, and larger collectives of groups)

The Fluid Nature of Follower and Leader Roles

75

(Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Encompassing a major research stream within the leadership literature, LMX theory is recognized for shifting focus from leaders to followers when considering the leader!follower relationship (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Another antecedent to current followership theory and research is found in attribution theory research. Rather than continuing to focus on a leader’s traits or actions, attribution theories emphasized the importance of how leaders, and later followers, viewed leadership (Bass, 1990). Each leader and follower was seen as having his/her own implicit theory about leadership (Bass, 1990). An example of this stream is found in the classic article, “The Romance of Leadership,” (Meindl, Erlich, & Dukerich, 1985), in which the authors found that organizational outcomes and even industry performance were attributed to the success — or failure — of the leader. The authors questioned whether these mythical attributions might be necessary to motivate followers to act in the organization’s best interests. The result of the research cited above is an increased interest in followers. What has spurred this renewed interest in followers and followership — besides bad leaders, ineffective leadership, and poor results? We believe that more people than ever are now aware that followers are instrumental to organizational success because (1) great followers make leaders look good (Bennis, 2008; Latour & Rast, 2004; Lundin & Lancaster, 1990), (2) followers’ support of organizational goals makes the organization run well (Bennis, 2008; Kelley, 1988), and (3) in rapidly changing environments, both flexible organizational structures and followers who can quickly adapt to change are critical (Howell & Mendez, 2008; Rosenbach, Pittman, & Potter III, 2012). So, a leader’s job boils down to setting a good example, articulating the organization’s vision and goals and then getting followers’ consensus (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). This is the barest of descriptions, of course; volumes of leadership theory and research provide myriad approaches and empirical support that flesh out a leader’s full set of responsibilities. Our concern here, though, is not to reprise these findings but to focus on the other actors in the organization — the followers, and to discuss their role in the follower!leader relationship. We examine follower behaviors in order to better understand follower contributions to the follower!leader relationship. We begin by defining a perspective on followership that frames our research. We then offer an overview of related theoretical work, discuss our own research findings on followership, and propose new areas of research based on propositions that we offer.

4.2.

The Integration of Leadership and Followership

Historically, the study of leadership focused on leaders with little attention to followers and followership (Baker, 2007; Collinson, 2005; Heller & Van Til, 1982; Lundin & Lancaster, 1990; Shamir, 2007). Most of what we know about followers in the research literature addresses followers as part and parcel of leadership theory. For example, in leader-centric theories of leadership, leaders’ actions, thoughts, and

76


behaviors are studied from the perspective of the leader (Meindl, 1995). In this view, leaders and their behaviors are modeled as independent variables that affect the dependent variables of followers and follower behaviors. A review of leadership approaches (Shamir, 2007) describes followers as moderators of leader influence (see, e.g., Fiedler, 1964; Hersey & Blanchard, 1978; House & Mitchell, 1978), followers as substitutes for leadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), and followercentered perspectives that recognize followers as not merely being an outcome of the leadership process but as having influence on the leadership process itself (Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1992; Meindl, 1995; Meindl et al., 1985). While research on the Great Man theory laid the foundation for leadership approaches in the late 19th century, it took almost another century for a critical mass of work to form about followership. As a select few scholars in the social sciences recognized, followers and their roles make important contributions to organizational processes (Baker, 2007). Social psychologist Edwin P. Hollander and his associates were early contributors to a body of literature about followers that developed over the second half of the 20th century. Key themes within this literature identified by Baker (2007) include the active role of followers (Hansen, 1987; Hollander, 1992; Hollander & Offermann, 1990; Kelley, 1988; Pittman, Rosenbach, & Potter III, 1998), follower styles (Berg, 1998; Kelley, 1988; Pittman et al., 1998; Steger, Manners, & Zimmerer, 1982), the interdependence of followers and leaders (Burns, 1978; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Hollander & Webb, 1955), and the reciprocal and mutual influence between followers and leaders (Burns, 1978; Heller & Van Til, 1982; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Hollander & Webb, 1955; Kelley, 1992; Potter III, Rosenbach, & Pittman, 1996). In essence, bodies of literature about leadership and about followership grew in parallel with scant few approaches, for example, LMX theory (Howell & Shamir, 2005), bridging the two theoretical divides. The call by Howell and Shamir (2005) to examine the relational processes of leaders and followers spurred new interest in the study of followers. Discussion of the role of followers in the leadership process is now found in many leadership research streams. To better understand the dyadic relationship between followers and leaders, we must first understand the concept of different roles in organizational settings.

4.3.

What Is a Follower?

Our starting point in understanding followers and followership is to accept the concept that the terms follower and leader refer to roles, not to genetic dispositions or even to birthrights. Role theory serves the current research well in positioning leader and follower roles in a social context. Role theory applies to organizations as well as to social life. An organization is a system of roles (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In formal organizations, people enact roles that have been described and coded by the organization. In a static situation, as people fulfill role requirements, they adhere to role


77

expectations rather than express their own personality characteristics. Formal expectations help to maintain the organizational system and also serve to motivate compliance with the expected role behaviors (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Roles, however, are affected by environmental and dynamic factors, and, thus, are subject to expectations expressed not only by the formal organization but also to those of the role holder as well as to those expressed by coworkers (Kerr, 1978). Individuals may enact a role differently. Also, one person may have multiple roles in work and family lives, and one person may have multiple organizational roles (Katz & Kahn, 1966). In sum, these early descriptions of roles are relevant today as we study leader and follower roles. In our research, we view a role as “a set of behaviors which are appropriate for a position which an individual fills” (Hollander, 1974, p. 19). A person may be appointed to a formal organizational role but chooses how to enact the role and fulfill its responsibilities. A person may also choose to enact a leader or follower role, even if that role is not formally assigned to him/her. In the social sciences, including leadership and management literatures, few authors questioned the follower role as more than an obedient subordinate position (see, e.g., Mead, 1949; Heller & Van Til, 1982) until Kelley (1988) argued that both “follower” and “leader” were best regarded as roles that people played, not people with inherent characteristics that defined them as leaders or followers. Kelley’s assertion opened the doors for other follower-centric works that supported and expanded the notion of follower as a role (Berg, 1998; Chaleff, 1995; Potter III et al., 1996; Sevier, 1999). More recently, the work of Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, and McGregor (2010) finds that followers have multiple views of their own roles. In this work, some followers are found to enact a proactive role while others favor obedience and deference, in the manner of passive-like role adoption. Further, followers’ schemas are thought to be affected both by surrounding leaders’ styles and by organizational work climate (Carsten et al., 2010). Thus, followers are impacted by their environment, and their resultant behaviors are altered according to their own interpretation of their roles. In this chapter, we focus on behavioral aspects of effective followers. We recognize that employees in an organization may choose to engage in passive, nonparticipative behaviors and may still be viewed as followers (Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1988). However, in this chapter we focus on one end of a range of follower behaviors; we consider true followership to encompass those behaviors that are most helpful in achieving organizational goals. Thus, in the present discussion, we define the follower role as an active, participative role in which a person willingly supports the teachings or views of a leader and consciously and deliberately works toward goals held in common with the leader and/or organization (Baker & Gerlowski, 2007). We define the leader role as a role in which a person leads, guides, commands, directs, and supports the activities of others, who are commonly called followers (Baker & Gerlowski, 2007). Followership is a process by which a person assumes the role of follower. The joint and active involvement of both a follower and a leader is essential to the

78


process of followership. Our research on followers and followership continues the path cut by followership scholars in the 1990s who distinguished effective from ineffective followers on the basis of their behaviors (Chaleff, 1995; Kelley, 1988, 1991, 1992; Potter III et al., 1996). In particular, we ground our work in the research of Rosenbach et al. (2012), who identify effective followers by focusing on their unique performance and relationship behaviors. Anecdotal reports from students and clients affirm our conjecture that effective followers are those who not only know how to do their jobs competently and reliably, but who also know how to build and maintain strong positive relationships with their peers and superiors. This distinction is delineated in Rosenbach et al.’s (2012) model of followership. In it, both performance and relationship characteristics are said to underlie the effectiveness of the follower!leader relationship.

4.3.1.

The Rosenbach, Pittman, and Potter III Model

Rosenbach and associates first developed their model of followership in 1996 (Potter III et al., 1996) and have since refined it (Pittman et al., 1998; Rosenbach et al., 2012). This model of followership is built on the premise that partnerships between leaders and followers exist in effective organizations. In such relationships, follower initiatives are seen to be as important as leader initiatives. Their model is built on two follower dimensions: performance and building relationships. Each dimension is comprised of four behavioral characteristics, and each is framed in the context of a follower taking initiative, either as it relates to performing tasks or to building relationships. In the model, the four behaviors linked with followers’ performance behaviors are: doing the job, working with others, embracing change, and considering one’s self as a resource. The four characteristics linked with taking initiative in building relationships are: identifying with the leader, building trust, courageous communication, and negotiating differences. In the manner of followership theorists preceding them (Frew, 1977; Kelley, 1988; Steger et al., 1982), the authors describe follower styles. In their model, each style represents a mix of the eight behavioral characteristics. Which behaviors a follower exhibits is influenced by the follower’s personality, the leader’s style, and the organization’s culture. While different styles could emerge at different times or within different areas of an organization, the authors believe that the most effective organizations are characterized by partnerships between leader and followers. To develop those relationships, the authors offer three suggestions to organizations: (1) teach partnership, (2) reward partnership, and (3) hire partners (Rosenbach et al., 2012). As we seek to investigate the follower’s part in the follower!leader relationship, we use this model to look at select aspects of follower characteristics and behaviors. We also borrow from a transformational leadership model developed by Kouzes and Posner (2002) to further flesh out behaviors that are most central to effective followership conduct.


4.4.

What Do Followers Do?

4.4.1.

Preliminary Research Findings about Performance Behaviors

79

We approach our research by examining what followers think about their own capabilities as followers and leaders. Do they have the ability to be both? Are particular effective follower behaviors linked to particular exemplary leader behaviors? To answer these questions, we surveyed employees in the healthcare industry in the United States. Our sample consisted primarily of White females, who were on average 42.47 years old and had worked approximately seven years for their organizations. Utilizing instruments from the leadership and followership realms, we measured followers’ attitudes about their own leadership behaviors (Kouzes & Posner, 2003) and followership behaviors (Rosenbach, Pittman, & Potter III, 1997). Having been guided by earlier research findings in both the traditional leadership domain and in the new and burgeoning followership literature, we first report on performance-related behaviors. We found that two dimensions of exemplary leaders’ performance identified by Kouzes and Posner (2002), challenging the process and enabling others to act, were associated with the followership experience (Baker et al., 2011). Both of these leader behaviors are directed toward helping followers maximize their performance and achieve organizational goals. These findings can be explained by the very nature of the leadership role. Leaders search for and create opportunities for organizational growth. In doing so, they challenge followers to “up their game” by accepting the new challenges and by bettering their own best performance. They urge followers at all levels to take initiative and to question the status quo. This behavior is successful only when leaders create a safe environment in which followers can suggest new ideas and try new practices without fear of criticism or retaliation (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). The two leader behaviors described above were associated with three performance-related behaviors of effective followers: embracing change, doing the job, and working with others. An effective follower is open to change and views it as an opportunity for self improvement, as well as improvement of the organization’s performance. Ignoring change or resisting it is not an option (Pittman et al., 1998). An effective follower also sets his/her own high standards in contrast to simply going through the motions. Last, an effective follower works with others to achieve common goals, putting group goals and organizational goals above his/her own self-interests. To accomplish this, the effective follower must be able to work well with others (Pittman et al., 1998). We contend that followers who challenge themselves to perform at their own highest standards will, as leaders, have the desire and the capacity to spur their own followers to “up their game” and excel in their own performance. Similarly, we believe that followers who are open to change and willing to embrace new ideas will, as leaders, demonstrate these qualities by looking for opportunities for organizational growth, which will likely require adaptability to change. Last, we believe that followers who work well with colleagues and put organizational goals ahead of

80


self-interests will, as leaders, have two key leader qualities: (1) the ability to model these desirable behaviors to their followers and (2) the skill set needed to create and nurture an organizational environment that encourages employees to ask questions and challenge the status quo, qualities which are essential for organizational growth and adaptability in a dynamic environment. Overall, our findings (Baker et al., 2011) suggest that in the process of performing well in their roles as effective followers, followers also appear to share qualities needed for performance as exemplary leaders. The followers in our sample saw themselves as possessing both effective follower and exemplary leader qualities related to performance. This begins to lay the foundation to answer questions of whether followers and leaders can exchange roles, and, if they can, which qualities each must possess to make that happen. Thus, the research reported here provides partial support for the idea that followers and leaders may actually enact either or both roles.

4.4.2.

The Dual Roles of Leaders and Followers

Since a follower is a role filled by a person, it makes sense that the role may be enacted differently by different people in different contexts. A follower may play multiple active roles “in the leadership process” (Shamir, 2007, p. xxiv) or in society (Kelley, 1991). A follower role may precede a leader role (Hollander & Offermann, 1990), or an individual may play both follower and leader roles (Chaleff, 2003; Hollander, 1974; Kellerman, 2008), sometimes at “different times or in different contexts” (Bennis, 2008, p. 4), and sometimes at the same time (Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1991). Theories of shared, distributed, and dispersed leadership make no distinction between fixed leader and follower roles and suggest that everyone should be regarded as both a leader and a follower (Shamir, 2007). This sharpens the focus of what is essentially a paradox: a leader is a follower and a follower is a leader; a person may enact both roles. The idea that one could be either leader or follower opens the door to these questions: How does one enact both roles? Are any attributes or qualities held in common in both the leader and follower roles? Further, do leaders and followers consciously choose to exchange roles during a given task or given day? If so, does this type of role shifting and role sharing benefit the organization? An organization benefits, of course, when a skilled follower can step into a leadership position and operations continue without a hitch, whether it be for a few hours or for a longer-term interim appointment. But, there are other forms of role enactment. Perhaps the most common example of role shifting is the middle manager who supervises followers and reports to superiors (Kerry, 2003). The middle manager demonstrates leader behaviors when supervising followers but must also demonstrate follower behaviors when interacting with superiors. Those who are comfortable with this “middle ground,” who have both follower and leader skills, and who can easily switch between the roles as needed, keep the organization moving. A middle manager who cannot do this may unknowingly hinder organizational operations. Consider emergency medical services. An Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) rolls a patient on a gurney into a hospital emergency room. As hospital staff


81

members who work at different hierarchical levels gather to address the emergency, they defer to the EMT, who may not be affiliated with the hospital but who leads the group temporarily. The EMT has likely demonstrated leader-like qualities by proactively caring for the patient before arriving at the hospital, and then initiates the sharing of vital information about the patient with the staff. Although not an appointed leader, the EMT is the first leader in the situation. Once the patient’s problem has been shared, the EMT steps back into follower role, and the next appropriate medical leader takes action. In this situation, both the hospital and patient benefit because those involved don’t toe a strict hierarchical line; rather, they are able to shift between leader and follower roles and demonstrate role-appropriate behaviors, depending upon whose skills are needed most, among other factors. Role sharing and shifting also occurs among teams. Pearce (2008), a proponent of shared leadership, provides an interesting rationale that addresses role sharing between leaders and followers. His argument goes like this: When faced with a problem, organizations often will create a team by assembling experts from different functional areas, appointing one member as leader. That leader can be successful in directing the team until faced with a problem outside of his/her functional area. At that point, the leader lacks the necessary knowledge to guide the team, and a team member with expertise in the problem area should take charge, shifting team leadership from the appointed leader to the member with expertise. Research about this application of role sharing has found that it led to better organizational results and, when practiced by top management teams, can be a predictor of company growth (Pearce, 2008). Team success is dependent upon team members having good leadership skills, and a leader with poor skills could create conflict, damage the team, and cause its demise (Pearce, 2008). Surely, in this example, we see that organizations can benefit by having diverse individuals proficient in both leader and follower behaviors and skills, who can move fluidly from follower role to leader role and back to follower role, as situations demand. This concept of shared leadership is constrained by time because team members must have time to learn each other’s skills and understand who should lead and under what circumstances (Pearce, 2008). What, then, happens in those situations when companies don’t have time to build an ongoing stable team of collegial and skilled experts? In the frenetic environment of most organizations, leaders find that they have to quickly solve new problems that they have never encountered before and must mobilize individual performers to find quick solutions. We submit that this happens on a regular basis, and that it happens naturally as a consequence of followers’ willingness and proclivity to enact dual roles and to even swap roles with their leaders. Thus, we offer the following proposition for further investigation: Proposition 1: Followers and leaders in an organization may enact both the follower role and leader role regardless of their organizationally assigned official position. Not all followers, of course, aspire to a leadership position. Some may value their role as a follower and find personal satisfaction in the contribution they make as

82


followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008). They simply want to be the best they can be at their position, be it teacher, fire fighter, or other organizational role. Other followers, however, do want to advance in their careers to leadership positions. Consider again the middle manager who continues to polish both leader and follower skills as he/she advances up the career ladder. Thus, another interesting aspect of our findings about the relationship of follower and leader performance characteristics (Baker et al., 2011) relates to the question of leader emergence. It is often said that one must be a good follower in order to become a good leader (Adair, 2008; Goffee & Jones, 2006; Litzinger & Schaefer, 1982). How are good leaders trained and developed? Is being an effective follower the same as “learning the ropes” or “earning one’s stripes” in order to advance to a formal position of leadership? When followers see themselves as having leader characteristics and behave like leaders, it may be that they are more likely to aspire to, and be successful in, leadership roles. There are many tantalizing questions regarding the impact of followers’ adoption of leader-like behaviors. The impact in terms of prediction remains an empirical question that offers great promise; that is, being able to predict which followers will adopt leader-like behaviors would be useful as we consider which followers to hire, which to support with training, and which to prepare for promotion. Thus, we offer the following propositions for further exploration: Proposition 2a: Followers’ possession of both follower and leader performance behaviors predict follower!leader role sharing. Proposition 2b: Followers’ possession of both follower and leader performance behaviors predict leader emergence.

4.4.3.

Relationship Behaviors

Our findings that followers’ view themselves as having both effective follower and exemplary leader performance characteristics (Baker et al., 2011) begin to lay the foundation for recognition of dual role enactment, role sharing, and role shifting. If skilled performance alone determined successful organizational outcomes, we would not need to go any further in our research. Yet, as many of us have experienced, even the best performance can be undone by poor working relationships at any level of the organization. The quality of leader!follower relations “all the way up and down the organizational chart” can make or break the organization (Chaleff, 2012, p. 90). The responsibility for an effective leader!follower relationship falls to both parties. In the Rosenbach et al. (2012) model, leaders who share their thoughts with followers and encourage them to join with them in mutually thinking about operational processes, create conditions in which strong relationships are built. Further, leaders should create an open and receptive environment in which followers’ feedback and questions are welcomed. Followers must actively attempt to improve their working relationships with their leaders in four areas: identifying with the leader, building trust with the leader, courageously communicating with the leader, and


83

negotiating differences with the leader. When both leader and follower are successful in these efforts, followers are empowered to act as partners, which serves the organization’s best interests (Rosenbach et al., 2012). How, then, do leaders and followers build strong bonds? What qualities are needed? Characteristics associated with a leader’s effectiveness in building relationships with followers include the transformational behaviors of encouraging the heart and inspiring a shared vision (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Leaders must be credible, trustworthy, exhibit caring for their followers, and enable followers to successfully tackle new challenges (Sashkin, 2012). In a meta-analysis of leadership research, Yukl (2012) identified support and recognition of followers, follower development, and follower empowerment as relations-oriented behaviors of effective leaders. In Carsten et al. (2010)’s research, followers viewed themselves as either proactive, active, or passive and demonstrated different behaviors with each adopted selfschema. Proactive and active qualities are included in the following listing of effective follower behaviors. Effective followers build strong follower!leader relations by demonstrating personal integrity and self-management (Bennis, 2008; Carsten et al., 2010; Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992; Rosenbach et al., 2012) by identifying with the leader’s goals and serving the leader (Chaleff, 2003; De Pree, 1992; Rosenbach et al., 2012; Sevier, 1999); by communicating courageously, even at personal risk (Bennis, 2008; Carsten et al., 2010; Chaleff, 2003; De Pree, 1992; Rosenbach et al., 2012); and by building trust with the leader (Bennis, 2008; Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1992; Rosenbach et al., 2012). Both leaders and followers must treat each other with mutual respect and value the contributions of both parties (Rosenbach et al., 2012). Following the Rosenbach et al. (2012) model, we believe that effective followers possess both performance and relationship characteristics. Based upon Baker et al. (2011) findings that followers viewed themselves as having performance qualities demonstrated by both effective followers and exemplary leaders, we posit that performance characteristics facilitate the ability of followers and leaders to engage in role sharing; thus, because of their function in providing training and development, performance characteristics also predict leader emergence. Further, we believe that followers are also likely to view themselves as demonstrating relationship behaviors associated with both effective followers and exemplary leaders. If that holds true, we would expect relationship behaviors also to pave the way for role sharing and leader emergence. This leads us to offer the following propositions for further investigation: Proposition 3a: Followers who view themselves as possessing relationship-building qualities of effective followers will also see themselves as possessing relationshipbuilding qualities of exemplary leaders. Proposition 3b: Followers’ possession of both follower and leader relationship behaviors predict follower!leader role sharing. Proposition 3c: Followers’ possession of both follower and leader relationship behaviors predict leader emergence. Of all leader and follower qualities, trust is critical to a strong relationship and underlies both follower and leader behaviors (Kouzes & Posner, 2002; Rosenbach

84


et al., 2012). Knowing how trust interacts with follower and leader behaviors can help explain what followers do, how they interact with leaders, and help us to understand how to build strong leader!follower relationships. We believe that a strong leader!follower relationship is built on interpersonal trust. A leader — or follower — trusts the other and expects the other’s word to be reliable (Rotter, 1971). The one who trusts is willing to be vulnerable to the other party, even though he/she has no control over that party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Further, trust must be reciprocated: both follower and leader must believe that the other is trustworthy. As one trusts the other, he/she is more willing to take risks — to be vulnerable to another (Rotter, 1971). As the other sees acts of risk-taking, he/she, in turn, judges the other to be trustworthy, develops trust for the other, and responds in kind. Both parties engage in trusting behaviors and demonstrate trustworthiness, creating reciprocity (Serva, Fuller, & Mayer, 2005). Leadership theory has historically assigned responsibility to leaders for the leader!follower relationship (Chaleff, 2012); after all, in leader-centric theories of leadership, the follower is often modeled as the recipient of the leader’s actions. Some follower-centric authors assert that the responsibility for maintenance of the leader!follower relationship actually lies with the follower: the follower must be willing to be open with the leader and to communicate honestly (Chaleff, 2012; Rosenbach et al., 2012). Also, if a follower also takes initiative to build trust with the leader, the relationship is likely to be stronger (Rosenbach et al., 2012). In the Rosenbach et al. (2012) followership model, followers take the initiative to build trust with their leaders by being reliable, discreet, and loyal. Trust is integral to the leader!follower relationship, and it is an important aspect of a follower’s ability to develop leader-like qualities and skills. To further explore the role of trust within the follower!leader relationship, we offer this proposition: Proposition 4: The follower behavior of building trust is positively associated with other effective follower and leader relationship-building behaviors.

4.5.

Conclusion

Much theory and research have investigated the leader’s role in the follower!leader relationship; a far smaller body of work examines the follower’s role. We explore follower behaviors as one avenue to begin to understand how followers enact their roles and build relationships with their leaders. We have raised many questions about the nature of this relationship. Our prior research found that followers in our sample viewed themselves as possessing both effective follower and exemplary leader performance qualities (Baker et al., 2011). Recognizing that the terms “follower” and “leader” refer to roles, we posit that, with appropriate skills and development, individuals can enact both leader and follower roles. We also posit that the ability to do so is a predictor of role sharing among and between followers and leaders, and of leader emergence.


85

Performance alone cannot determine follower success, leader success, or organizational success. As Bennis (2007) observed in the quote that starts this chapter, leaders, followers, and a common goal are inseparable, and the leadership process in grounded in the follower!leader relationship. So, we propose future research to investigate the relationship-building behaviors of followers and leaders. We posit that followers who view themselves enacting effective follower behaviors with regard to building relationships will also view themselves enacting exemplary leader behaviors, and further, that relationship-building behaviors will predict role sharing and leader emergence. We also posit that trust underlies all aspects of follower and leader relationship-building qualities. Learning about the relationship-building characteristics of followers and leaders will add different hues to the simple black and white picture we now have of qualities that are needed for the roles of effective follower and effective leader. The follower!leader relationship is a complex one, and the roles in it are not always fixed. It is the fluid nature of the roles within the relationship that hold promise for the richest outcomes for leader, follower, and organization. That same fluidity also presents the greatest opportunities and challenges to behavioral scientists who seek to unravel its complexity.

References Adair, R. (2008). Developing great leaders, one follower at a time. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 137!153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Attkisson, S. (2009a). Student loan charity under fire. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews. com/8301-18563_162-4839552.html Attkisson, S. (2009b). Loan charity’s high-flying guests exposed. Retrieved from http://www. cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4841768.html Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50!60. Baker, S. D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2007). Team effectiveness and leader-follower agreement: An empirical study. The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 11(2), 15!23. Baker, S. D., Mathis, C. J., & Stites-Doe, S. (2011). An exploratory study investigating leader and follower characteristics at U.S. healthcare organizations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 23(3), 341!363. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62(1), 2!5. Bennis, W. (2008). The art of followership: Great followers create great leaders. Leadership Excellence, 25(4), 4. Berg, D. N. (1998). Resurrecting the muse: Followership in organizations. In E. B. Klein, F. Gabelnick, & P. Herr (Eds.), The psychodynamics of leadership (pp. 27!52). Madison, CT: PsychoSocial Press.

86


Buel, M. (2012). Scandals, misconduct plague US military. Retrieved from http://www.voanews. com/content/scandals-misconduct-plague-us-military/1546380.html Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543!562. Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Chaleff, I. (2012). Courageous followers, courageous leaders: New relationships for learning and performance. In W. E. Rosenbach, R. L. Taylor, & M. A. Youndt (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (7th ed., pp. 89!93). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419!1442. De Pree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York, NY: Dell Publishing. Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327!344. Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model for the prediction of leadership effectiveness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. xx!yy). New York, NY: Academic Press. Follett, M. P. (1949). Freedom and coordination: Lectures in business organization. London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd. Frew, D. R. (1977). Leadership and followership. Personnel Journal, 56(2), 90!97. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006, Summer). The art of followership. European Business Forum, 22!26. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a multilevel multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219!247. Hansen, T. L., Jr. (1987). Management’s impact on first-line supervisor effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 52(1), 41!45. Heller, T., & Van Til, J. (1982). Leadership and followership: Some summary propositions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 405!414. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1978). Life cycle theory of leadership. In W. E. Natemeyer (Ed.), Classics of organizational behavior (pp. 216!226). Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Company, Inc. Reprint. Hollander, E. P. (1974). Processes of leadership emergence. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3(4), 19!33. Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(2), 71!74. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387!397. Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Relational features of organizational leadership and followership. In K. E. Clark & M. B. Clark (Eds.), Measures of leadership (pp. 83!97). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of America. Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163!167. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597!606.


87

Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior (Rev ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanich, Inc. House, R. J., & Mitchell, T. R. (1978). Path-goal theory of leadership. In W. E. Natemeyer (Ed.), Classics in organizational behavior (pp. 226!236). Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Co., Inc. Reprint Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96!112. Howell, J. P., & Mendez, M. J. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 25!40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley. Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 142!148. Kelley, R. E. (1991). Combining followership and leadership into partnership. In R. H. Kilmann, I. Kilmann, & Associates (Eds.), Making organizations competitive: Enhancing networks and relationships across traditional boundaries (pp. 195!220). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency. Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. LipmanBlumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5!15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kerr, S. T. (1978). Consensus for change in the role of the learning resources specialist: Order and position differences. Sociology of Education, 51, 304!323. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 375!403. Kerry, T. (2003). Middle managers as followers and leaders: Some cross-professional perspectives. Management in Education, 17(3), 12!15. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Leadership practices inventory: Self (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer (Survey instrument). Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal, 18(4), 102!110. Litzinger, W., & Schaefer, T. (1982). Leadership through followership. Business Horizons, 25(5), 78!81. Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990). Beyond leadership ... the importance of followership. The Futurist, 24(3), 18!22. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709!734. Mead, M. (1949). Problems of leadership and mental health. World Federation for Mental Health Bulletin (1949-1952). 1(6), 7!12. Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329!341. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78!102.

88


Pearce, C. L. (2008, July 7). Follow the leaders. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http:// online.wsj.com/article/SB121441363110903891.html Pittman, T. S., Rosenbach, W. E., & Potter III, E. H. (1998). Followers as partners: Taking the initiative for action. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (4th ed., pp. 107!120). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Potter III, E. H., Rosenbach, W. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1996). Leading the new professional. In R. L. Taylor & W. E. Rosenbach (Eds.), Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence (3rd ed., pp. 145!152). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., & Potter III, E. H. (1997). Performance and relationship questionnaire (Survey instrument). Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., & Potter III, E. H. (2012). What makes a follower? In W. E. Rosenbach, R. L. Taylor, & M. A. Youndt (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (7th ed., pp. 77!87). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443!452. Sashkin, M. (2012). Leadership. In W. E. Rosenbach, R. L. Taylor, & M. A. Youndt (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (7th ed., pp. 7!19). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. “Scandals”. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/all-site-terms/term/ summary/159.html Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625!648. Sevier, R. A. (1999, January/February). How to be an exceptional follower. Trusteeship, 7, 12!17. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix!xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Steger, J. A., Manners Jr., G. E., & Zimmerer, T. W. (1982). Following the leader: How to link management style to subordinate personalities. Management Review, 71(10), 22!28, 49!51. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66!85.

Chapter 5

Comparing Followers and Subordinates: Accounting for the Effects of Organizational Hierarchy Kim T. Hinrichs and Andrew T. Hinrichs

Abstract Purpose ! In this chapter we aim to add conceptual clarity to followership as distinct from hierarchical rank or subordination by addressing how subordination makes it difficult for low-level employees to engage in desirable follower behaviors. Design/methodology/approach ! We review literature in the areas of hierarchical power and status differences and human dignity that detail the effects of subordination on human behavior. Findings ! Followership research should account for individuals’ location in workplace hierarchies because certain features of subordination, when present, affect the ability of employees to engage in exemplary follower behaviors. Originality/value ! In followership research, employees in low-level subordinate positions are often used proxies for followers. In this chapter we present support for the position that followers and subordinates are conceptually different and accordingly the sampling procedures of followership researchers should take that difference into account. Keywords: Follower; subordinate; hierarchy; dignity

Since Robert Kelley’s (1988, 1992) groundbreaking work, interest in followership has steadily gained momentum. Empirical studies and theoretical models of followership have become increasingly rigorous and sophisticated over time. One of the most prevalent patterns that has emerged in followership literature is the presentation of


90

Kim T. Hinrichs and Andrew T. Hinrichs

behaviors and characteristics that individuals in a follower role should possess (e.g., Chaleff, 1995; Jaussi, Stefanovich, & Devlin, 2008; Kellerman, 2007; Kelley, 1992; Potter & Rosenbach, 2006; Steger, Manners, & Zimmerer, 1982). Characteristics of the best, often termed exemplary followers (Kelley, 1988), include: integrity, dependability, competence, courage, critical thinking, commitment, initiative, intelligence, persistence, responsibility, self-reliance, and skepticism (Banutu-Gomez, 2004; Chaleff, 1995; Hollander, 1993; Kelley, 1992). These behavioral perspectives on followership seek to identify the factors that deter an employee from performing as an exemplary follower and provide developmental direction to employees in a follower role or recommendations to organizational decision-makers on how to motivate individuals to become exemplary followers (Cunha, Rego, Clegg, & Neves, 2013). In spite of the progress made in followership research, multiple reviews of the followership literature agree that a widely accepted definition of followership has not materialized (Baker, 2007; Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006). Crossman and Crossman (2011) noted that only five of the thirty followership works they reviewed provided any definition of the term followership. They concluded, “Continued discussion and debate are required in order to diffuse some of the confusion surrounding definitions of leadership and followership” (Crossman & Crossman, 2011, p. 484). With regard to the definition of followership, we suggest that a key issue at the heart of the confusion noted by Crossman and Crossman (2011) is the difference between followers and subordinates. In this chapter we address the fundamental difference between followers and subordinates and the ways hierarchical subordination erodes the dignity of low-level employees and impedes their capacity to engage in desirable follower behaviors. The distinction between subordination and followership can largely be explained by the negative reaction of individuals in subordinate positions to the power and status differences inherent to organizational hierarchies. We review several features of subordination that, when present, affect the ability of followership scholars to properly identify and sample legitimate followers. In so doing, we respond to the call for management research to address the effects of power and status differences in organizations (Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Pearce, 1982). Our aim is to add conceptual clarity to followership as distinct from what is commonly used in empirical samples in followership, that is, studies hierarchical rank or subordination. Followership literature reveals that scholars often do not differentiate followers from subordinates (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Kellerman, 2008). They may pragmatically assume that because followers typically function at lower organizational levels than leaders, differences between followers and subordinates is a moot point (Bennis, 1999; Collinson, 2006; Thody, 2003). Others implicitly equate followers with subordinates by defining followers as having less power, authority, and influence than leaders (Kellerman, 2008), or as being obligated to comply with a leader’s directives (Bjugstad et al., 2006; Townsend & Gebhardt, 1997). Further evidence of this view can be inferred from the fact that in many empirical studies followers are operationalized as low-level employees (e.g., Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, & Bullock, 2009; Bligh, Kohles, Pearce, Justin, & Stovall, 2007; Brown & Thornborrow, 1996;

Comparing Followers and Subordinates

91

Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Gilbert & Hyde, 1988; Gilbert & Whiteside, 1988; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012; Russell, 2003; Schyns & Felfe, 2006; Yun, Cox, & Sims, 2006). In a similar vein, in certain practitioner or leader-focused literature, the word follower is often used interchangeably with the word subordinate when, given the discourse, the more accurate term would be subordinate (e.g., Agho, 2009; Goffee & Jones, 2001; Offermann, 2004; Thoroughgood, Padilla, Hunter, & Tate, 2012). In discussing followership as practiced in modern organizations, the complexity of the interconnectedness between followers and subordinates is often ignored. Without explicitly acknowledging it, many works on followership, at least in part, more accurately address low hierarchical rank, and when referring to followers, they are actually referring to subordinates. Consequently the long history of work on subordinates (e.g., Blau, 1968; Crowe, Bochner, & Clark, 1972; Fodor, 1974; Green, 1975; Hater & Bass, 1988; Mitchell, Green, & Wood, 1981; Tjosvold, Andrews, & Jones, 1983; Turban & Jones, 1988; Turban, Jones, & Rozelle, 1990; Weiss, 1977; Xin & Pelled, 2003) has now been partially intermingled with followership literature. There are several reasons why the distinction between followers and subordinates remains unclear. First, organizations have woven the concepts of leadership and followership into their hierarchical systems by rewarding effective demonstrations of leadership with promotions and corresponding increases in power, status, and rewards (Pfeffer, 1977). Consequently, once individuals are separated by hierarchical rank, it becomes difficult to separate leadership and followership from hierarchical positions of authority. Second, followership researchers often adhere to the widely debated tradition of leadership research where supervisors, managers or executives are operationalized as leaders despite the generally recognized conceptual distinction between leadership and management (Graen, Rowold, & Heinitz, 2010; Hollander, 1995; Kotter, 1990; Yukl, 2006; Zaleznik, 1977). As scholars began to empirically study followership, this tradition was emulated and subordinates have been used as proxies for followers, in most cases without concern or explanation (see Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGreggor, 2010 for an exception). If the majority of the studies in the field are sampling low-ranking employees, it becomes difficult to argue that scholars are not simply ignoring the difference, studying subordination and calling it followership (Rost, 1993, 1995). Over time, this oversight harms the clarity of the followership construct because research evidence indicates that subordination in a hierarchy has profound effects on the attitudes and behaviors of individuals. The implication of this is highlighted when we review literature that details the robust effects that position in a hierarchy has on individuals. One perspective that may be used to illuminate the difference between subordination and followership relates to the source of the deference. French and Raven (1959) described five types of power originating from two sources, position in a hierarchy or personal characteristics. Reward, coercive, and legitimate power derive from hierarchal position. Expert and referent power stem from an individual’s character, integrity, knowledge, and abilities. Subordinates defer to superiors out of obligation, followers choose to defer to a leader because they believe, based on their evaluation of dimensions such as the leader’s moral character, courage, effort, or

92


ideas, that the leader’s direction is worthy of support. The decision to follow is entirely the follower’s prerogative (Graham, 1988; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Seteroff, 2003). In contrast, subordination is a mandatory requirement of hierarchical position and is defined by power and status differences. Followers only sometimes enact a follower role; subordinates are always subordinates. For example, a junior attorney in a law firm is always a junior attorney. She or he is always subordinate to more senior attorneys. However, being subordinate does not ensure that an employee will interact with their superior in a leader!follower relationship. Therefore, an employee can be subordinate without being a follower and can be a follower without being subordinate. Hierarchical subordination is not a relationship between people; it is a relationship between positions.

5.1.

Hierarchy and Individual Behavior

Hierarchy in organizations refers to the rank ordering of employees (Blau & Scott, 1962; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). Employees lower in a hierarchy are said to be subordinate to and are expected to show deference to those at a higher level (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Hierarchies are characterized by inequality in status, privilege, power, respect, and financial rewards, with greater amounts of each afforded to those higher in the hierarchy (Blau & Scott, 1962; Kerckhoff, 1995; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995; Wright & Perrone, 1977). By establishing differences in status, influence, role expectations, and evaluation criteria, organizational hierarchies affect the attitudes and behaviors of employees according to their position (Blankenship & Miles, 1968; Kerckhoff, 1995; Lieberman, 1956; Ridgeway & Walker, 1995). For example, research indicates that lower-level employees tend to believe that when compared to higher-level employees, they are not expected to be as valuable to the organization (Felmlee & Eder, 1983; Ridgeway, Boyle, Kuipers, & Robinson, 1998) and will adjust their behaviors, be it performance, creative input, or leadership, accordingly (Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008; Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, & Chatman, 2006; Whyte, 1943). Hierarchical role expectations also bias the performance evaluations of low-level employees (Biggart & Hamilton, 1984; Dornbusch & Scott, 1975; Dreeben & Barr, 1988; Sande, Ellard, & Ross, 1986; Tiedens, Ellsworth, & Mesquita, 2000). Simply due to their place in the hierarchy, when low-level employees perform as well as higher-level employees, they tend to receive lower evaluations than higher-level employees. Studies have found that in situations where there is no difference in performance by level or when information on performance is unavailable, the performance of high-level employees is consistently rated higher than low-level employees (Harvey, 1953; Sande et al., 1986). Therefore, not only do subordinates experience pressures to perform in accordance with their low position, even if they perform well their output is undervalued due to biases against those positioned low in the hierarchy. These rating biases make subordinates and followers different in theory, in practice and empirically.


93

Research on the effect of status and power differences in organizations indicates that employees in high-level positions have significant advantages over employees in low-level positions (Hall, 1974). Those high in the hierarchy are provided with more benefits, privileges, and esteem (Bass, 1990; Hollander, 1985; Switzer, 1975). High-status positions afford individuals more influence over their work environment and a wider range of acceptable behavior (Hollander, 1985, 1995; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). Consequently they have more opportunity to satisfy needs for autonomy, control, and power (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). In contrast, lower-level employees have fewer opportunities for expression (Brown & Levinson, 1987; DePaulo & Friedman, 1998) and when given the chance, are less likely to openly express their genuine opinions (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Berdahl & Martorana, 2006; Brinõl, Petty, Valle, Rucker, & Becerra, 2007; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Hall, 1974). Furthermore, low-level employees are more likely than leaders to let their opinions be shaped by others, particularly those higher in the hierarchy (Brinõl et al., 2007; Galinsky et al., 2008; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). This is a concern considering that one of the behaviors expected of exemplary followers is the frank and open communication with leaders (Kelley, 1992). The reactions by low-level employees to power and status differences described in the research above indicate that demonstrating exemplary followership behaviors is more difficult for employees in hierarchically subordinate positions. Another prominent feature of a workplace hierarchy is the relative compensation of employees (Bloom, 1999; Frank, 1985). Differences in pay act to confer higher levels of status and power to those that earn more (Frank, 1985; Lerner, 1974) and reinforce status and power inequalities already present in an organization (Stewart & Moore, 1992). Wide disparities in compensation levels between the highest paid and the lowest paid organization members are thought to negatively affect subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors (Hollander, 1995; Kelley, 1992). Research findings confirm that people tend to assume that high pay is an indication of superior abilities or more valuable contributions and evaluate themselves and others accordingly (Cook, 1975; Harrod, 1980; Moore, 1968; Stewart & Moore, 1992). Additionally, studies have found that in the absence of performance information, or where there were no measureable performance differences, subsequent evaluations of performance favored those who were higher paid (Bierhoff, Buck, & Klein, 1986; Cook, 1975; Harrod, 1980; Parcel & Cook, 1977; Stewart & Moore, 1992). This bias affects the extent of an employee’s influence, as well as the attribution of credit or blame, making it difficult for the behavior of low-level employees to be perceived as exemplary when compared to employees higher in the hierarchy. This is significant for followership research because the performance of low-level employees operationalized as followers may be evaluated unfavorably in comparison to higher-level employees even if their performance is equal with respect to their responsibilities (Harrod, 1980; Stewart & Moore, 1992). This is a problem not only when comparing followers with different status in the same organization but also when comparing followers in different organizations where disparities in compensation and responsibilities between hierarchical levels may vary considerably.

94

5.2.


Human Dignity and Hierarchal Subordination

Research on human dignity adds insight on the effect of status and power differences on subordinates. Human dignity refers to the intrinsic value, moral worth, pride, and self-respect that is attributed to and shared by all people regardless of their position (Hodson, 2001; Kant, 1993; Meyer, 1989, 1992; Rayman, 2001). Dignity has a social component in that it is not inherently possessed but is conferred on individuals by other human beings. In this regard, a person’s sense of dignity can increase or decrease depending on his or her perception of how they are viewed by others (Mann, 1987; Rayman, 2001). Hierarchies in organizations may communicate to members that certain individuals have greater worth. Consequently, in organizations members develop “shared perceptions regarding the extent to which individuals within their organization are esteemed, shown consideration, and treated with dignity” (Tenbrunsel, Smith-Crowe, & Umphress, 2003, p. 294). Wasserstrom (1964) noted, “One’s human dignity, if it is a mark of anything, is a mark of one’s equality on some fundamental level with other human beings. It is this very fact that makes deferential behavior a particularly inappropriate way of expressing one’s dignity” (p. 630). Others have also noted that in our society, an individual’s dignity is linked to the nature of their work and hierarchical organizational contexts are at odds with maintaining the dignity of low-level employees (Bennis, 1999; Rayman, 2001). Conditions where status and power are distributed inequitably can erode low-level employees’ self-respect and compromise their dignity (Rayman, 2001). The significance for followership studies is that organizations with hierarchical structures, particularly those that feature wide discrepancies in status, power, and rewards between the lowest and highest ranking members, may find that such systems erode the dignity of those individuals in the lower organizational levels. Maintaining a sense of dignity at work is important if low-level employees are to engage in exemplary followership because dignity violations have the capacity to affect individuals’ physical, mental, and social well-being and ultimately, their behavior (Mann, 1987; Ramarajan, Barsade, & Burack, 2008). Research has demonstrated that individuals who experience dignity violations in conjunction with the unequal distribution of status and power often respond with behaviors typically descriptive of poor followers such as being disruptive (Meyer, 1989), uncooperative (Hodson, 1996; Nemeth, 1970), or passive (Culbert, 1974; Gouldner, 1970). Additionally, when their work experiences do not reinforce their own positive views of themselves employees may leave the organization (Pinel & Paulin, 2005) or focus their efforts outside of work (Lord & Brown, 2001) by redirecting their search for dignity to nonwork sources such as family, religion, or community (Hodson, 1996). Therefore, when organizations confer high levels of power, status, and rewards on those employees in high-level positions they may find that such practices erode the dignity of low-level employees and inhibit their ability to engage in exemplary follower behaviors. Additionally, the research on dignity suggests that operationalizing subordinates as followers homogenizes organizational group members in a fashion that may miss an opportunity to better understand the nature of the followership process.


95

In summary, the cumulative effect of the benefits of high-status and power positions allows employees in high-level positions, relative to those in low-level positions, to accumulate greater wealth (Switzer, 1975), live happier, healthier, and longer lives (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006; Keltner et al., 2003; Marmot, 2004), and experience increased self-worth through their identification with other high-status individuals (Hogg & Terry, 2000; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). On the other hand, employees lower in the hierarchy experience more stress (Kets de Vries & Zaleznik, 1972) and have less self-esteem, autonomy, and opportunities for self-actualization (Porter, 1962). Low-level employees also tend to be less optimistic, less confident, and more passive (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006; Brinõl et al., 2007; Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003; Keltner et al., 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). Combined, these issues should reflect on the sampling procedures and description of who is, or is not, regarded as a follower in followership research. Doing so will enable followership scholars to draw a conceptual distinction between true followers and subordinate employees.

5.3.

Discussion

Power and status are significant differentiators in organizations. This chapter highlighted research that demonstrates the potent effects of hierarchy that are embedded in the workplace. Power and status differences put employees who exist at low hierarchical levels at a distinct disadvantage in terms of how their outputs are perceived, evaluated, and rewarded. We suggest that research focusing on the dynamics of followership has not often taken direct issue with the effects of hierarchy on employees typically operationalized as followers — the subordinates. Designating certain employees as followers due to their rank has implications for the conceptual development of followership and research on the leader!follower relationship. Moving forward, research that theoretically clarifies who followers are as well as typical follower behaviors should account for individuals’ location in workplace hierarchies because it has a significant influence on their life experiences, personal development, and workplace outcomes (Kerckhoff, 1995). We further proposed that the dignity of lower-level employees may be compromised in hierarchical workplaces. Where an individual is situated in the hierarchy affects their behavior such that it is more difficult for employees in low power and status positions to establish long-term perceptions of self-worth (Rayman, 2001). Consequently it is reasonable to suppose that those low in a hierarchy to take a more transactional view of their workplace relationships while seeking dignity fulfillment outside their workplace. Therefore, many individuals will not fit the narrative of exemplary followership, even though they are fulfilling their obligations to their employer by acting in accordance with their job descriptions. If employees who view their employment relationships as more transactional are typecast as lessor followers, it can impact their career advancement (Hollander, 1995; Magee & Galinsky, 2008), as well as their health, mood, and optimism (Bass, 1990; Marmot, 2004; Van Vugt, 2006). For these reasons, future followership research could benefit

96


from studies that attempt to account for the psychological effects of hierarchy on low-level employees’ perceptions of self-worth. It is also important to note that followership in one context can be considerably different than another. Scholars have noted the importance of considering contextual factors, including organizational structure, when studying the leader!follower relationship (Hollander, 1974; Hunter, Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Steger et al., 1982; Yukl, 2006). For example, Howell and Meńdez (2008) proposed that organizational factors such as task requirements, reward, and promotion systems, mentoring programs, training, feedback, job enrichment programs, and an emphasis on teamwork affect follower role orientation which in turn leads to relationship effectiveness. Others have suggested that factors such as an organization’s rate of growth or the degree to which an organization is conservative or innovative will influence follower behavior (Potter & Rosenbach, 2006; Wortman, 1982). Additionally, scholars describe a context for studying followership where hierarchy is minimal such as decentralized, team-based, or self-managed organizations where the involvement of all members is valued and hierarchical status and power is deemphasized or more evenly distributed (Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Sims, 2002). Others have even proposed that as an organizing form, hierarchies are on the wane (Bennis, 1999; Brown, 2003; Kelley, 1992; Lippitt, 1982). However, as interesting as this research is, the evidence indicates that hierarchies remain, and will continue to remain, as a dominant form of organizing (Heller & Van Til, 1982; Leavitt, 2005; Thody, 2000). Accounting for hierarchical differences within and between organizations is important because they create significantly different contexts for followership. Below we outline ideas that will hopefully contribute to followership research, and research on hierarchies.

5.3.1.

Recommendations for Followership Research

It is difficult to argue that every subordinate in an organization continues membership out of voluntary devotion. Therefore, to gain a more detailed understanding of the nature of followership, its development and boundary conditions, scholars should focus on sampling individuals that best represent a follower. It is important to identify possible criteria for sampling in not only in employment organizations, but also in contexts not dominated by power and status effects where individuals are able to satisfy self-worth needs. As we pointed out in this chapter, employment often requires being subordinate to authority figures and as a consequence experiencing less power and status in the workplace hierarchy. Research in the area of employee job attitudes has shown that within any occupation or job group, variance exists such that not all individuals are equally satisfied or committed (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Weng, McElroy, Morrow, & Liu, 2010). Therefore, instead of followership research continuing to treat subordinates as homogenous followers, it may be helpful to categorize employees by their reported attitudes where those with high or exaggerated levels of positive job attitudes are used in data analysis and operationalized as followers.


97

Additionally, although most empirical studies of followership sample low-level employees, research supports the idea that individuals higher in an organization’s hierarchy may better represent followers in the workplace. In support of this idea, Dixon (2006) found that lower-level employees had lower attributions of followership behaviors than employees higher in the hierarchy. This highlights the performance biases inherent in power and status hierarchies outlined previously in this chapter. Consequently, within large, hierarchical organizations the members of the top management team, board of directors, and board of trustees are occupied by individuals who may best represent the contemporary description of exemplary followership. Future research should continue to explore the differences between individuals at various organizational levels because identifying cognitive and psychological variables that are affected by hierarchical disparities can help scholars distinguish subordinates from followers in employment situations. A large focus of this chapter has hinged on the notion that a portion of subordinates who are typically studied and labeled followers do not necessarily behave like followers perceive themselves as such. Research investigating individuals’ nonworkplace involvement could answer important questions regarding an individual’s willingness to defer to authority. Followership scholars may have an easier time sampling in organizations where individuals are not invested in an employment relationship. Outside of the workplace individuals engage in group activities that fulfill needs other than those typically filled in the workplace If individuals seek out power, status, respect, and feelings of self-worth in areas outside of their employment environment, an interesting avenue of research would be to determine the types of groups, activities, or contexts that predict the voluntary deference that help define a follower (Chaleff, 1995; Kelley, 1992). This could be accomplished by adjusting sampling procedures to capture followership behaviors in contexts that lack severe financial repercussions for noncompliance to authorities. Similarly, contexts where selfselection to a group or organization is belief or value-driven, such as religious, volunteer, political, or other social groups, would more likely be comprised of individuals who better fit the definition of follower. Within employment contexts, the social hierarchy framework outlined by Magee and Galinsky (2008) can help guide future research on the effects of subordination. They suggest that status and power are the two foremost differentiators that create hierarchies in organizations. Power hierarchies emerge from control over valued resources and are often embedded in the authority position itself. Status hierarchies form out of the respect an individual has conferred on them by others (Keltner et al., 2003; Magee & Galinsky, 2008). These rank-ordering systems suggest that an individual can possess either power or status without necessarily possessing the other. Similarly, there are many inputs to gaining and obtaining power and status at work yet they stem from different sources. While power stems from resource control and is therefore the property of an individual with authority, status emerges from other peoples’ perceptions and is theirs to grant or retract. This is an important difference that can be reflected in prospective leadership followership models. By empirically separating and examining the sources that allow power and status hierarchies to form, forthcoming research may be able to explain why some managers

98


may have a high organizational rank (i.e., control over valued resources) yet experience difficulties in forming and maintaining positive long-term relationships with subordinates. Managers may have power through their authority but perhaps lack status; meaning employees do not respect or trust them thus making group maintenance difficult. Research that employs Magee and Galinsky’s framework has the opportunity to theoretically and empirically sort out leaders from managers and subordinates from followers. Shared leadership is an interesting line of research addressing leadership! followership distribution in groups. Shared leadership research examines the consequences of leadership emerging and emanating from group members rather than (or in conjunction with) a formal leader (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce, Manz, & Sims, 2008). Shared leadership departs from more traditional forms of leadership, often labeled vertical leadership, which assumes a unidirectional downward influence pattern (Pearce & Sims, 2002; Vandewaerde, Voordeckers, Lambrechts, & Bammens, 2011; Yukl, 2006). Taking a role theory perspective, leadership is shared in that the various leadership roles needed in a given situation are fulfilled by group members with the situationally appropriate knowledge, skills, or abilities (Pearce, Conger, & Locke, 2007). This conceptualization of leadership requires that organizational members (i.e., subordinates) engage in leadership roles to at least some degree. In line with the sharing of leadership duties, an interesting research question involves examining contextual elements, like organizational hierarchies that aid or inhibit subordinates as they transition into more complex roles and how the transition back to subordinate affects an individual’s leadership and followership development process. Further, subordinate individual difference variables are likely sources of variance in the effective sharing of leadership or followership duties. Future work should explore variables that reveal individuals’ perceptions and beliefs regarding the nature of effective leadership and followership. For example, recent research has shown that individuals who view leadership as a process to be shared by leaders and followers were less likely to justify their own unethical behavior by displacing responsibility onto people in leadership positions (Hinrichs, Wang, Hinrichs, & Romero, 2012). Similar to leadership beliefs, it is likely that an individual’s personal motivation to lead others influences their engagement in follower-like behaviors (Chan & Drasgow, 2001). Alternatively, it is reasonable to assume that there are numerous individuals who do not wish to occupy leadership roles and this lack of desire exists for a variety of reasons. Therefore, research utilizing a shared leadership framework incorporating variables that assess an individual’s beliefs about the nature of leadership could provide an improved understanding of how leadership and followership are effectively distributed and maintained.

5.3.2.

Conclusion

Both leadership and followership are high callings. They require the best attributes of organization members. This is evidenced by the widely stated observation that


99

the qualities needed to be an effective leader are the same needed to be a good follower (Hollander, 1995; Lee, 1991). However, individuals are often required to work in organizational environments where hierarchical systems inhibit their ability to engage in the behaviors of an exemplary follower. In this chapter, we drew attention to hierarchy differentiators that can bridle the lives and careers of lowlevel employees. We argued that the uncertain definition of followership may be partially due to a lack of consensus regarding who a follower is and thus, more focus is needed both theoretically and empirically that deals directly with matters of workplace hierarchy.

References Agho, A. O. (2009). Perspective of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 16, 159!166. Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 90!101. Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362!1377. Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511!536. Anderson, C., Srivastava, S., Beer, J. S., Spataro, S. E., & Chatman, J. A. (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1094!1110. Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 50!60. Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 4, 143!151. Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Bennis, W. (1999). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is impossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 71!79. Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial group discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 497!509. Bierhoff, H. W., Buck, E., & Klein, R. (1986). Social context and perceived justice. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 165!185). New York, NY: Plenum. Biggart, N. W., & Hamilton, G. G. (1984). The power of obedience. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 540!549. Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7, 304!319. Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12, 111!131.

100


Blankenship, L. V., & Miles, R. E. (1968). Organizational structure and managerial decision behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 106!120. Blau, P. M. (1968). Hierarchy of authority in organizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 73, 453!467. Blau, P. M., & Scott, W. R. (1962). Formal organizations: A comparative approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler. Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., Pearce, C. L., Justin, J. E., & Stovall, J. F. (2007). When the romance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56, 528!557. Bloom, M. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on individuals and organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 25!40. Brinõl, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., & Becerra, A. (2007). The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040!1053. Brown, A. (2003). The new followership: A challenge for leaders. Futurist, 37, 68. Brown, A. D., & Thornborrow, W. T. (1996). Do organizations get the followers they deserve? Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 17, 5!11. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217!1234. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGreggor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543!562. Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Chan, K.-Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 481!498. Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179!189. Cook, K. S. (1975). Expectations, evaluations and equity. American Sociological Review, 40, 372!388. Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualizing followership: A review of the literature. Leadership, 7, 481!497. Crowe, B. J., Bochner, S., & Clark, A. W. (1972). The effects of subordinates’ behavior on managerial style. Human Relations, 25, 215!237. Culbert, S. A. (1974). The organization trap. New York, NY: Basic Books. Cunha, M. P., Rego, A., Clegg, S., & Neves, P. (2013). The case for transcendent followership. Leadership, 9, 87!106. DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., vol. 2, pp. 3!40). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Dixon, G. (2006). The relationship of organizational level and measures of follower behaviors. Proceedings of the 2006 IJME — INTERTECH Conference. Retrieved from http://ijme.us/cd_06/PDF/EN%20401-079.pdf. Accessed on June 28, 2013. Dornbusch, S. M., & Scott, W. R. (1975). Evaluation and the exercise of authority. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Dreeben, R., & Barr, R. (1988). Classroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Education, 61, 129!142.


101

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327!344. Felmlee, D., & Eder, D. (1983). Contextual effects in the classroom: The impact of ability groups on student attention. Sociology of Education, 56, 77!87. Fodor, E. M. (1974). Disparagement by a subordinate as an influence on the use of power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 652!655. Frank, R. H. (1985). Choosing the right pond: Human behavior and the quest for status. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150!167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453!466. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450!1466. Gilbert, G. R., & Hyde, A. C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public Administration Review, 48, 962!968. Gilbert, G. R., & Whiteside, C. W. (1988). Performance appraisal and followership: An analysis of the officer in the boss/subordinate team. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 39!43. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2001). Followership: It’s personal, too. Harvard Business Review, 79(11), 148. Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York, NY: Basic Books. Graen, G., Rowold, J., & Heinitz, K. (2010). Issues in operationalizing and comparing leadership constructs. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 563!575. Graham, J. W. (1988). Chapter 3 commentary: Transformational leadership: Fostering follower autonomy not automatic followership. In J. G. Hunt, B. R. Baliga, H. P. Dachler, & C. A. Schriesheim (Eds.), Emerging leadership vistas (pp. 73!79). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Green, C. N. (1975). The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 187!193. Hall, J. (1974). Interpersonal style and the communication dilemma: I. Managerial implications of the Johari awareness model. Human Relations, 27, 381!399. Hardy, C., & Van Vugt, M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1402!1413. Harrod, W. G. (1980). Expectations from unequal rewards. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 126!130. Harvey, O. J. (1953). An experimental approach to the study of status reactions in small groups. American Sociological Review, 18, 357!367. Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695!702. Heller, T., & Van Til, J. (1982). Leadership and followership: Some summary propositions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 405!414. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. A. (1982). Leadership style: Attitudes and behaviors. Training and Development Journal, 36, 50!52. Hinrichs, K. T., Wang, L., Hinrichs, A. T., & Romero, E. J. (2012). Moral disengagement through displacement of responsibility: The importance of leadership beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 62!80.

102


Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the workplace under participative management: Alienation and freedom revisited. American Sociological Review, 61, 719!738. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121!140. Hollander, E. P. (1974). Processes of leadership emergence. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 19!33. Hollander, E. P. (1985). Leadership and power. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., vol. 2, pp. 485!538). New York, NY: Random House. Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29!48). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Hollander, E. P. (1995). Ethical challenges in the leader-follower relationship. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 55!65. Howell, J. P., & Meńdez, M. J. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. R. Riggio, I. C. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 25!40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications, and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 425!446. Jaussi, K., Stefanovich, A., & Devlin, P. (2008). Effective followership for creativity and innovation. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 291!307). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 84!91. Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, 142!148. Kelley, R. E. (1992). Power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday Books. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265!284. Kerckhoff, A. C. (1995). Social stratification and mobility processes. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 476!496). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Zaleznik, A. (1972). A socio-psychological inquiry into the nature and significance of stress reactions in organizations. INSEAD Research Papers Series, No. 88, Fontainbleau, France. Kotter, J. (1990). A force for change: How management differs from leadership. New York, NY: Free Press. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1993). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leavitt, H. J. (2005). Top down: Why hierarchies are here to stay and how to manage them more effectively. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Lee, C. (1991). Followership: The essence of leadership. Training, 28, 27!35. Lerner, M. J. (1974). The justice motive: “Equity” and “parity” among children. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 29, 539!550.


103

Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management. doi: 10.1177/0149206312457822 Lieberman, S. (1956). The effects of changes in roles on the attitudes of role occupants. Human Relations, 9, 385!402. Lippitt, R. (1982). The changing leader!follower relationships of the 1980s. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 395!403. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2001). Leadership, values, and subordinate self-concepts. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 133!152. Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 351!398. Mann, J. (1987, December 6). A remedy required around the world: Dignity. Boston Globe, p. D3. Marmot, M. (2004). Status syndrome. London: Bloomington. Meyer, M. J. (1989). Dignity, rights, and self-control. Ethics, 99, 520!534. Meyer, M. J. (1992). Introduction. In M. Meyer & W. A. Parent (Eds.), The constitution of rights: Human dignity and American values (pp. 145!177). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. (1981). An attributional model of leadership and the poor-performing subordinate: Development and validation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 197!234). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Moore, J. C. Jr. (1968). Status and influence in small group interactions. Sociometry, 31, 47!63. Nemeth, C. (1970). Bargaining and reciprocity. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 297!308. Offermann, L. R. (2004). When followers become toxic. Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 54!60. Parcel, T. L., & Cook, K. S. (1977). Status characteristics, reward allocation, and equity. Sociometry, 40, 311!324. Pearce, C. L., Conger, J. A., & Locke, E. A. (2007). Theoretical and practitioner letters: Shared leadership theory. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 281!288. Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2008). The roles of vertical and shared leadership in the enactment of executive corruption: Implications for research and practice. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 353!359. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172!197. Pearce, J. L. (1982). Leading and following volunteers: Implications for a changing society. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 385!394. Pfeffer, J. (1977). The ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2, 104!112. Pinel, E., & Paulin, N. (2005). Stigma consciousness at work. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 345!352. Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management I: Perceived deficiencies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 375!384. Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603!609.

104


Potter III, E. H., & Rosenbach, W. E. (2006). Followers as partners: The spirit of leadership. In W. E. Rosenbach & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership (6th ed., pp. 143!158). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Ramarajan, L., Barsade, S. G., & Burack, O. R. (2008). The influence of organizational respect on emotional exhaustion in the human services. Journal of Positive Psychology, 3, 4!18. Rayman, P. M. (2001). Beyond the bottom line: The search for dignity at work. New York, NY: Palgrave. Ridgeway, C. L., Boyle, E. H., Kuipers, K. J., & Robinson, D. T. (1998). How do status beliefs develop? The role of resources and interactional experiences. American Sociological Review, 63, 331!350. Ridgeway, C. L., & Walker, H. A. (1995). Social structures. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine, & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 281!310). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rost, J. C. (1995). Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 129!142. Russell, M. (2003). Leadership and followership as a relational process. Educational Management & Administration, 31, 145!157. Sande, G. N., Ellard, J. H., & Ross, M. (1986). Effect of arbitrarily assigned status labels on self-perceptions and social perceptions: The mere position effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 684!689. Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the perception of leadership: An overview, a study, and a research agenda. Small Group Research, 37, 522!539. Seteroff, S. S. (2003). Beyond leadership to followership. Victoria, Canada: Trafford. Steger, J. A., Manners, G. E. Jr., & Zimmerer, T. W. (1982). Following the leader: How to link management style to subordinate personalities. Management Review, 71(10), 22!28, 49!51. Stewart, P. A., & Moore, J. C. (1992). Wage disparities and performance expectations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 78!85. Switzer, K. A. (1975). Peasant leadership: Comparisons of peasant leaders in two Columbian states. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 16, 291!300. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7!24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Smith-Crowe, K., & Umphress, E. E. (2003). Building houses on rocks: The role of the ethical infrastructure in organizations. Social Justice Research, 16, 285!307. Thody, A. (2000). Followership or followersheep? An exploration of the values of non-leaders. Management in Education, 14(2), 15!18. Thody, A. (2003). Followership in educational organizations: A pilot mapping of the territory. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 2, 141!156. Thoroughgood, C. N., Padilla, A., Hunter, S. T., & Tate, B. W. (2012). The susceptible circle: A taxonomy of followers associated with destructive leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 897!917. Tiedens, L. Z., Ellsworth, P. C., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Stereotypes about sentiments and status: Emotional expectations for high- and low-status group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 560!574.


105

Tjosvold, D., Andrews, R., & Jones, H. (1983). Cooperative and competitive relationships between leaders and subordinates. Human Relations, 36, 1111!1124. Townsend, P., & Gebhardt, J. E. (1997). For service to work right, skilled leaders need skills in “followership”. Managing Service Quality, 7(3), 136!140. Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarity: Types, effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228!234. Turban, D. B., Jones, A. P., & Rozelle, R. M. (1990). Influences of supervisor liking of a subordinate and the reward context on the treatment and evaluation of that subordinate. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 215!233. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354!371. Vandewaerde, M., Voordeckers, W., Lambrechts, F., & Bammens, Y. (2011). Board team leadership revisited: A conceptual model of shared leadership in the boardroom. Journal of Business Ethics, 104, 403!420. Wasserstrom, R. (1964). Rights, human rights, and racial discrimination. Journal of Philosophy, 61, 628!641. Weiss, H. (1977). Subordinate imitation of supervisor behavior: The role of modeling in organizational socialization. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 19, 89!105. Weng, Q., McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Liu, R. (2010). The relationship between career growth and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 391!400. Whyte, W. F. (1943). Street corner society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Wortman, M. S. (1982). Strategic management and changing leader!follower roles. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 371!383. Wright, E. O., & Perrone, L. (1977). Marxist class categories and income inequality. American Sociological Review, 42, 32!55. Xin, K. R., & Pelled, L. H. (2003). Supervisor-subordinate conflict and perceptions of leadership behavior: A field study. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 25!44. Yukl, G. A. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Yun, S., Cox, J., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (2006). The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 374!388. Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67!78.

PART 2: WHY DO PEOPLE FOLLOW?

Chapter 6

Why Do People Follow? Micha Popper

Abstract From the perspective of the followers’ psychology, two paradigms can be defined regarding followers’ inferences about leaders. One is more relevant to following distant leaders (e.g., political leaders) with whom most followers have no direct or frequent interactions. The other is more relevant to following close leaders (e.g., managers, “leaders in everyday life”) with whom followers interact frequently. Followers’ attraction to leaders is analyzed in light of three theoretical views: (a) psychoanalytic, where the leader is seen as a protective figure; (b) cognitivepsychological, where the leader is seen as a suitable and psychologically convenient explanation for a complex reality; (c) social-psychological, in which the leader is a kind of narrative imparting meaning to followers’ social identity and sense of self-worth. The relative relevance of each of the three explanations is discussed as well as the type of (different) inferences used by followers relating to close and distant leaders. The chapter discusses and illustrates how these perspectives can help in formulating more accurate models to predict and explain followers’ choices of leaders and their willingness to follow them. Keywords: Followers inferences; projections; attributions; narratives; close leaders; distant leaders

A scene in a Japanese film directed by Akira Kurosawa shows a troop of war-weary soldiers moving toward the next battlefield. The camera lingers over the perspiring faces, tired eyes, and dragging feet. They are exhausted. Suddenly in the distance they see their leader standing on a hilltop and waving his hand in greeting. The dramatic effect of the leader’s presence is amazing. The soldiers’ eyes sparkle, their backs straighten, their weariness disappears. With renewed energy they march into


110

Micha Popper

battle. Then the camera turns away from the soldiers and slowly zooms in to a close-up of the leader. When the camera hovers over his face we see that the leader is dead. Somebody is supporting him and waving his hand in the air. Scenes of this kind, which demonstrate so distinctly the leader’s central place in the followers’ minds, often appear in various forms in the folklore of diverse cultures (Segal, 2004; Strauss, 1959). Indeed, it is common knowledge that the very thought of the leader’s presence instills in the followers a sense of security, order, or meaning (Burns, 1978; Kets de Vries, 1988). Why do leaders have such an impact? What are the origins of such feelings? This chapter seeks psychological answers to these questions. Specifically, what are the sources of yearning for a leader? Why are people ready to follow leaders (sometimes blindly)? Is it an inherent instinctive process or an acquired human tendency that is context-bound and culture-bound? Three psychological explanations of craving for leaders and willingness to follow them are suggested here: psychoanalytic, cognitivepsychological, and social-psychological. Following these explanations, I explain why these three explanations would be more salient to situations involving distant leaders than those involving more proximal leaders.

6.1.

The Psychoanalytic Explanation

Unlike other animals, such as baboons or chimpanzees, which stand on their feet and start moving soon after birth, and within weeks are aware of threats and ways of coping with them, the human baby is wholly dependent on the care of adults for a long time (Bowlby, 1973). This fact, according to prominent theorists, has crucial psychological significance for people’s development throughout their entire lives (Bowlby, 1973; Freud, 1920). The longing for a leader is one of the psychological expressions of this primary process. It is the inherent longing for an authority figure that was (in most cases) so protective in our early lives. As will be explained later, this inherent longing intensifies and is expressed openly, even forcefully, in times of crisis (Pillai, 1996). From this perspective, leaders are a response to the people’s anxieties and wishes. They are, as will be exemplified, projected inventions of parental images that reduce anxieties and impart feelings of safety.

6.2.

The Cognitive-Psychological Explanation

Research in cognitive psychology examines how people make sense of reality, as they perceive it, and whether there are laws and rules (heuristics) governing their processing of the information received (Weick, 1995). The leaders, their image, their speech, and their behavior are pieces of information in the totality of data that the individual absorbs and processes. Research has shown that information about a leader is interpreted in a special way. For instance, when individuals are asked to explain what is happening in a certain situation, they ascribe greater weight to

Why Do People Follow?

111

“actors” (people) than to circumstances. This is a cognitive bias known as the fundamental attribution error (Ross, Amebile, & Steinmatz, 1977). From this theoretical viewpoint, political changes and upheavals are attributed to leaders rather than to complex processes (Calder, 1977). For example, the upheaval that occurred in the Soviet Union during the 1980s was attributed more to Gorbachev’s leadership than to the complex processes taking place gradually over many years (Westlake, 2000). This bias is reflected in the greater popularity of leaders’ biographies than of books analyzing complex historical processes (Popper, 2012) or in the public’s focus on the leaders’ personality during election campaigns, with little or no attention paid to the party platforms and manifestos (Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009). This “romance of leadership” (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985) can be explained by heuristics, which proved consistent in cognitive-psychological research. Tversky and Kahneman (1973), for example, found two major heuristics that people use in processing information to which they are exposed. These are availability and representativeness, namely an individual’s tendency to assess the probability of an event by the ease with which occurrences come to mind. Hence, as will be elaborated later, leaders can serve as heuristics in that they are the most evident and accessible information providing a convenient category of explanation in evaluating and judging occurrences in informatively complex situations (Lord, Foti, & Devader, 1984).

6.3.

The Social-Psychological Explanation

From the social-psychological viewpoint, people’s willingness to follow leaders is anchored to the term “identity.” Huntington (2004) demonstrated its central importance. In the introduction to his book he quoted the story of Rachel Newman, which was published in Newsweek after the collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. She reported: When I was 19 I moved to New York City. If you asked me to describe myself then, I would have told you I was a musician, a poet, an artist, and, on some political level, a woman, a lesbian, and a Jew. Being an American wouldn’t have made my list. In my college class my girlfriend and I were so frustrated by inequality in America that we discussed moving to another country. On September 11 all that changed. I realized that I had been taking the freedom I have here for granted. Now I have an American flag on my backpack, I cheer at the fighter jets as they pass overhead and I am calling myself a patriot. (p. 40) This example embodies two main ideas: (a) people have a hierarchy of identities, that is, identities in the upper echelons are easier to activate and (b) salient events and people can affect the hierarchy of the individual’s identities. The argument is that leaders can exert such an effect on the salience of the individual’s identities if they are perceived as representatives of a narrative, of a suitable story that touches on people’s emotions (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). This explanation is based

112

Micha Popper

on the concept of the self, its crystallization and development, which is the hub of the discussion in social psychology (Markus & Wurf, 1987). According to this explanation, following on the heels of certain leaders is simply constructing or accepting a story that followers create for themselves as part of the crystallization of their identity (Lord & Brown, 2004). Unlike the two previous explanations (psychoanalytic and cognitivepsychological), which relate to psychological processes regardless of cultural differences, the question of following leaders as a symbol, a story, is by definition context-bound and culture-bound. As stated by the culture researcher Hofstede (2001), leaders are symbols of cultures. Understanding their influence is in fact understanding important symbols in a given culture. In sum, the attraction to leaders and obedience given to them, the construction of their image and attribution to them of characteristics, abilities, decisions and behaviors, are largely subjective creations of the followers and do not necessarily derive from the leader’s actual qualities. The underlying factors of this process, its psychological rules and meanings, are rooted in the need either for security (e.g., Maslow, 1970) or for causality (Weick, 1995), or in the need for identity and belonging (Shamir et al., 1993). I’ll turn now to analyze more broadly the relative relevance of each of the three above explanations proposed for followership.

6.4.

Psychoanalytic Interpretations: When Are They More Salient?

The need for security is deemed central in human experience (some, such as Bowlby, would argue it is the most central). Its centrality was shown by Jean LipmanBlumen (2007), who presented statistical evidence from a 2006 national survey by the Los Angeles Times. It was found that when the need to strengthen security conflicted with the values of freedom and human rights, the former prevailed. Only 40 percent of respondents thought that human rights should be protected under any circumstances. Regarding voting patterns, although 62 percent thought that the state should take other directions than those set by the ruling party, the majority of this group declared that they would vote for the party they opposed because it gave them more physical security. A clear association between the psychological need for security and yearning for a “strong leader” was reported by the historian Arthur Schlesinger (1958), quoting Eleanor Roosevelt’s impression of the inauguration of her husband (who was elected during the great economic crisis in the 1930s): “When Franklin said in his inauguration speech that he might have to assume presidential powers that are usually assumed by the president in wartime, just in that part of the speech he received the most thunderous applause” (p. 2). Indeed, it was found that Americans tend to show a greater preference for charismatic authoritarian leaders and a lesser preference for participative leaders when threatened by war (McCann, 1992) and when reminded of their mortality (Cohen, Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2004).


113

As stated, the reflection of the need for security has become a cornerstone of leading theories in psychology (e.g., Bowlby, 1973). Bowlby’s attachment theory demonstrates with great clarity the centrality of the need for security in the construction of psychological processes. One of the foremost arguments of the theory is that people are attracted to individuals whom they perceive as stronger and wiser. The wish for “strong and wise” may have various manifestations in modern times, images such as competent, knowledgeable, experienced, and so forth. Freud (1939) presents an argument with similar logic: people are attached to leaders as figures who are in fact a representation of their parents, those whom they perceived in their early childhood as strong, wise, and competent. He explains the longing thus: It is in the longing for the father, which is common to all humans from their childhood days. Now it may become clear to us that the characteristics that we attribute to the great person are the characteristics of parents, and the essence of greatness of great people lies in this convention … Decisive thinking, willpower, and energetic action are part of this image. (pp. 109!110) Such explanations are indeed close to the instinctive tendencies of animals to obey the stronger members of their own species who can help them to survive. Similarly, individuals perceived as offering these goods (e.g., parents to their small children) will be the source of attraction to a “safe haven” (Bowlby, 1973). The main claims in these theories can be linked to the logic of evolutionary theories. The principal argument is that the role of the leader (on the level of the followers’ basic feeling) is to provide followers with a sense of security and confidence in facing complex processes of adjustment (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008). According to this argument, the followers have gut feelings about who can help them better in adjustment processes. This can explain, for example, why leadership correlates with such factors as age and health (Van Vugt et al., 2008). In ancestral environments, possession of knowledge vital for survival may have been a reason for followers to be drawn to the person who had this knowledge (Boehm, 1999). In fact, individuals who are intuitively perceived as competent and able to solve difficult problems have been found to attract more followers (Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005). Such an attraction to a leader and willingness to follow him or her will appear most prominently in crisis situations (Pillai, 1996) when there is a sense of existential threat. This arouses a longing for the early father (according to psychoanalytical thinking), a person perceived as strong, wise, and competent (according to evolutionary psychological theories such as attachment theory). Whatever the theoretical terms, there is a burgeoning expression of primary instinctive feelings, manifested in a primal longing for someone who can give them security: the leader. This longing, as history has shown (e.g., in Nazi Germany; see Kershaw, 2001), takes center stage and erases differences among people in terms of personality, income, education and social status. Hence, intellectuals alongside industrialists alongside laborers can find themselves yearning for a leader who represents a response to the primary needs of living beings whoever they are (Popper, 2012).

114

6.5.

Micha Popper

Cognitive-Psychological Interpretations: When Are They More Salient?

Cognitive-psychological explanations, which also refer to the leader’s centrality in processing information, can be interpreted in terms of reducing uncertainty, which, though not as intimidating as existential threats, is still a vexatious psychological phenomenon. In other words, the need to make sense of the complex information engulfing us is rooted in the wish to bolster our certainty in the interpretation and consolidation of our pictures of the world (Weick, 1995). According to this logic, the heuristics that individual’s use for processing information such as availability and salience (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), or the fundamental attribution error (Ross et al., 1977), are simply effective for the rapid decrease of distress related to the feeling of uncertainty. A leader, certainly a charismatic one, is a particularly effective heuristic for organizing complex and uncertain reality (Popper, 2012). Mischel’s typology (1973) is especially relevant for clarifying the rationale regarding the level of uncertainty and followers’ craving for a leader. He distinguishes “strong psychological situations,” namely those with a high degree of certainty, order, and consistency (e.g., routine work), from “weak psychological situations” ranging from uncertainty to an existential threat. With these concepts it is possible to summarize the following theoretical principle: the more individuals are deeply involved (according to their feelings) in “weak psychological situations,” the stronger their craving for a leader and the more intensive their attraction to a charismatic leader. When the feeling of insecurity is not as primary as in situations of existential threat (e.g., warfare, terror) but uncertainty still exists (e.g., with regard to cause and effect relations), the instinctive element in the explanation will be reduced, leaving more room for cognitive theories, particularly attribution theories (which promote explanations of causality) in interpreting the centrality of leaders in the followers’ view. In that sense the leader is a salient “piece of information,” which appears relatively quickly and effortlessly on the followers’ “screen” and helps them organize the abundant and somewhat confusing information that surrounds them. When people feel that the psychological situation is “strong,” meaning that there is a sense of security, order and organization, the issue of leadership in general can be considered marginal — perhaps even superfluous. Then there will be room for leadership substitutes. That is, other formation that does not center on a single leader might fulfill functions of coordination, guidance, and order (Gronn, 2002).

6.6.

Social-Psychological Explanations: When Are They More Salient?

So far I have discussed explanations anchored to the quest for security or adjustment arising from primary needs related to survival, or the quest for order and clarity discussed and studied as universal processes (Popper, 2012). As mentioned,


115

these explanations are valid across different cultural contexts. Social-psychological explanations are different, in that they call for a profound understanding of socialpsychological processes in specific social and cultural contexts. This understanding is crucial for identifying sources of attraction and obedience to leaders. An analytic concept that permits comparative analysis according to this view is the social self, which begins to crystallize in early childhood (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). The theoretical claims that connect the social self to attraction and obedience to leaders are (a) the reality in which people live is not only material and objective but also replete with meanings represented by symbols that are presentations of complex and abstract phenomena (Charon, 1979); (b) certain symbols serve as objects for meaning, identity and communication among people; similarly, certain actions, as well as certain people, have symbolic value (Charon, 1979); and (c) leaders can be symbolic representations of a cultural and/or social category that assist in defining or crystallizing the followers’ social self (Shamir et al., 1993). Hence, by understanding symbolic codes of a certain society it is also possible to diagnose the followers’ expectations of a leader, and to discern what kind of leader they will follow. For example, Hofstede (2001) argued that leaders are simply culture heroes, and as such represent or harness the understandings and motivations that exist in a given group. The argument that the leader is simply the embodiment of a group, its characteristics and desires, appears in the works of early sociologists (Durkheim, 1973) and social psychologists, who also see the leader as the embodiment of the group’s characteristics as well as the catalyst of processes of identification with the group (Hogg, 2001). It is thus possible to conclude that in “pure” weak psychological situations — to quote Mischel, when the need for security is palpably central, and in situations when the need for identity and meaning is central, the “addiction” to the leader is clearly explicable. In the first case, it is based on the need for confidence in explanations whose sources are psychobiological and, therefore, presented as carrying universal validity and crossing cultural boundaries. In the second case it is related to the needs of particular groups for identity. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of the specific followers and the cultural context that characterizes them is the key to predicting and explaining who the leaders are whom they wish to follow. This case is fundamentally different from its predecessor in that the explanations are culture-bound. For example, comparative analysis of the personalities of leaders such as George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, David BenGurion, Ataturk — leaders who are regarded as the fathers of their nations, whose leadership is seen as exceptional in its influence — finds no similarities among them, certainly not in their personality, background or manner of functioning. Yet they all excelled in catalyzing identity processes. In other words, the need for identity is similar, but its sources and development require profound understanding of the psychology of the followers everywhere, namely their historical, cultural, and psychological background. The spiritual influence of Gandhi is incomprehensible without an understanding of Hindi culture, as is the powerful charisma of David Ben-Gurion (regarded at the beginning of his career as a dull leader) without an understanding of the historic event and its significance for the Jews after World War II.

116

Micha Popper

The greatness and the charisma of such leaders is a story of “the spirit of the age,” which they represented distinctively in their follower’ eyes at that time. Understanding the historical cultural context is the key to understanding why the people followed the leader in each of these cases (Popper, 2012).

6.7.

Following Distant Leaders Vs Following Close Leaders

The explanations and examples discussed so far relate to a sphere in which followers and leaders rarely interact face to face (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, 1995). In such cases relatively few clues will be enough for followers to determine who is a leader (whom they will willingly follow) and who is not (Lord & Maher, 1991). In most cases these clues will not relate to specific behaviors. By the nature of things, in such cases there are fewer observed behaviors, and inferences are mostly based on construal processes (Liberman, Trope, & Stephan, 2007) and attribution processes (Lord & Maher, 1991). However, the inferential processes will be different for leaders with whom the followers have frequent interactions — “leaders in everyday life.” In the latter, it is easier to sustain causality inferences to observed behaviors and concrete outcomes (Erickson & Krull, 1999). Indeed, studies on leaders in organizations, who have frequent contact with followers, indicate the centrality of the behavioral component in the leaders’ impact (e.g., Bass, 2008; Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fiedler, 1967; Hersey & Blanchard, 1969). Jacquart and Antonakis (under review) point out that when followers in organizations have information concerning outcomes (e.g., success or failure) they attribute the outcome largely to the leaders. It is easy to see how such an inference is generated: leaders’ behaviors and decisions in organizations can be clearly observed, and connected to leaders’ emphasis on proximal and specific goals (Antonakis & Jacquart, 2012, House, 1971). By contrast, distant leaders (e.g., social and political leaders) articulate ideals and visions (Burns, 1978) and tend to use “symbolism, mysticism, imaging and fantasy” (Bass, 1985, p. 6). Hence, they do not necessarily lead to the completion of the interpretation known in the literature as the correspondence inference (Erickson & Krull, 1999). Consequently, there are more perceptual limitations with regard to the congruence between behaviors and traits in terms of attribution theories (Hamilton, 1988). In sum, from the perspective of the followers’ psychology, two paradigms can be defined regarding followers’ inferences about leaders. One is more relevant to following leaders with whom there are no direct or frequent interactions. The other is more relevant to following leaders in everyday life. These differences can be explained by the evidence adduced from two systems of inference: system-1 and system-2 (Evans & Frankish, 2009; Kahneman, 2011). The former is an automatic system that operates quickly with a little or no effort. The latter requires the time, attention, focus, and effort needed for complex mental activities (e.g., calculations). Following political or social ideological leaders is a system-1 inference. The followers refer to the initial attraction to a leader with little well-established knowledge of his or her actual functioning as such (Antonakis & Jacquart, 2012).


117

The followers, in these cases, might be impressed by the leader’s life story as publicly presented (Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) or by his or her rhetorical messages and manner (Shamir, Arthur, & House, 1994). By contrast, leadership in everyday life is a system-2 inference in which followers’ ascriptions regarding the leader are supposedly based more on evidence and performance outcomes. Leaders in these cases are assessed more by associating their behaviors and decisions with results. Considering the arguments presented earlier in this chapter, system-1 inferences regarding leadership can be associated more with psychoanalytic concepts (e.g., projection), psycho-cognitive notions (e.g., heuristics, attributions) and psychosocial terms (e.g., narratives, symbols), allowing quick information processes. In the other, based more on system-2, inferences regarding leaders are made in relation to dependent variables of effectiveness (Antonakis & Jacquart, 2012). By the nature of things, this paradigm focuses more on behavioral and outcome variables. The distinction between these two basic systems might have considerable significance for theory and research in the psychology of follower!leader dynamics. In the case of distant leaders (as opposed to close leaders), “the romance of leadership” (Meindl et al., 1985) will be predominant in the followers’ inferential processes. As such, followers’ psychological characteristics, needs, concerns, and values would seem to carry critical weight. This point is rarely if ever addressed in the abundant literature on leadership (Popper, 2012).

6.8.

Conclusion

To better answer the question “Why do people follow?” I suggest developing an approach that takes into account significant aspects affecting leader!follower dynamics. Major aspects discussed and demonstrated in this chapter, such as strong and weak psychological situations (Mischel, 1973), identity and psycho-cultural aspects (Popper, 2012), and distance from the leader (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002; Shamir, 1995), along with the heuristics and major psychological mechanisms discussed here, can predict and explain people’s willingness to follow leaders in various distinctive and representative circumstances. Obviously, these lines of thinking need to be expanded. However, even at this early stage some theoretical and practical implications can clearly be seen. Theoretically, there is a need to address the vacuum regarding the psychology of followership, which has not been the focus of psychological research on leadership. Practically, this chapter illustrates the possibility (and maybe the need) to foster followers’ awareness of biases and unconscious processes that might affect their choices of leaders and their motivation to follow them (especially in political, social, and ideological realms). Improving followers’ psychological capabilities in choosing their leaders, and examining the limits of their willingness to follow, might significantly improve the level of leadership in all spheres. This point cannot be overemphasized.

118

Micha Popper

References Antonakis, J., & Atwater, L. (2002). Leader distance: A review and proposed theory. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 673–704. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323(5918), 1183. Antonakis, J., & Jacquart, P. (2012). The far side of leadership: Rather difficult to face. In M. C. Bligh & R. Riggio (Eds.), When near is far and far is near: Exploring distance in leader-follower relationship. Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press. Bass, B. M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership (4th ed.), New York, NY: Free Press. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf. Boehm, C. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest. London: Harvard University Press. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, Vol. 2 (separation). New York, NY: Basic Books. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Calder, J. B. (1977). An attribution theory of leadership. In B. M. Staw & G. R. Salancik (Eds.), New directions in organizational behavior. Chicago, IL: St. Clair Press. Charon, J. M. (1979). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2004). Fatal attraction: The effects of morality salience on evaluations of charismatic, task oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psychological Science, 15, 846!851. Durkheim, E. (1973). The dualism of human nature and its social conditions. In R. Bellah (Ed.), Emile Durkheim on morality and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Erickson, D. J., & Krull, D. S. (1999). Distinguishing judgments about what from judgments about why: Effects of behavior extremity on correspondent inferences and causal attribution. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 1!11. Evans, J. B. T., & Frankish, K. (Eds.). (2009). Minds: Dual processes and beyond. New York. NY: Oxford University Press. Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Freud, S. (1920). A general introduction to psychoanalysis (American Edition, pp. 363!365). Garden City, NY: Garden City. Freud, S. (1939). Moses and monotheism (Vol. 18, pp. 109!110). London: Hogarth Press. (Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud). Gardner, W., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 32!58. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423!451. Hamilton, D. L. (1988). Causal attribution viewed from an information processing perspective. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 359!385). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Management of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Hogg, M. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184!200.


119

House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321!338. Huntington, S. (2004). Who are we? The challenges to America’s national identity. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (under review). “It’s the economy stupid,” but charisma matters too: A dual process model of presidential elections outcomes. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrars, Traus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 430!454. Kershaw, I. (2001). 1936!1945 Nemesis. New York, NY: Norton. Kets de Vries, M. (1988). Prisoners of leadership. Human Relations, 41(31), 261!280. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. (2007). Psychological distance. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lipman-Blumen, J. (2007). Toxic leaders and the fundamental vulnerability of being alive. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (p. 4). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Devader, C. L. (1984). A test of cognitive categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perception. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343!378. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing. London: Routledge. Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self. Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224!253. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social-psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299!337. Maslow, A. (1970). Motivation and personality. New York, NY: Harper & Row. McCann, S. J. H. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of US presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 469!479. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78!102. Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning conceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252!283. Pillai, R. (1996). Crisis and the emergence of charismatic leadership in groups: An experimental investigation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 543!562. Popper, M. (2012). Fact and fantasy about leadership. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Ross, L. D., Amebile, T. M., & Steinmatz, L. (1977). Social roles, social controls and biases in social perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485!494. Schlesinger, A. M. Jr. (1958). The coming of the new deal (pp. 1!2). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Segal, R. (2004). Myth, a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shamir, B. (1995). Social distance and charisma. Theoretical notes and explanatory study. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 19–48. Shamir, B., Arthur, M. B., & House, R. H. (1994). The rhetoric of charismatic leadership: A theoretical extension, a case study and implications for research. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 25.

120

Micha Popper

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395!417. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organizational Science, 4, 577!593. Strauss, A. (1959). Mirrors and masks: The search for an identity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623!1626. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207!232. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182!196. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense making in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Westlake, M. (Ed.). (2000). Leaders of transition. London: Macmillan.

Chapter 7

Being Both Leaders and Followers: Advancing a Model of Leader and Follower Role Switching Thomas Sy and Tara McCoy

Abstract We propose a novel construct on Leader!Follower Switching (LFS). We delineate the key theoretical tenets of LFS. First, LFS is predicated on the premise that individuals possess schemas for leader and follower roles (i.e., implicit theories of leadership and followership) and role switching involve the activation of these schemas. Second, LFS may be a function of individual differences i.e., the four LFS styles: (i.e., Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation) and context (e.g., contextual cues trigger leader and follower schemas). Third, LFS encompasses behavioral enactment (i.e., individuals behaviorally enact the leader or follower roles that are mentally activated) that is explained by the Perception-Behavior Link. Fourth, LFS processes can operate in controlled (conscious) or automatic (preconscious) fashion. Having explicated the theoretical foundation of LFS, we propose an agenda for future research, focusing on assessment, antecedents (e.g., leader and follower experiences, implicit theories of leadership and followership, organizational hierarchy, and culture), and outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, relationship quality, and leadership effectiveness) of LFS. Keywords: Leadership; followership; roles; switching; styles

Imagine yourself at work talking with your supervisor. How do you see your role in this situation, as a follower? Now, imagine that you are talking with an employee you recently hired. How do you see your role in this situation, as a leader? A colleague recently described a similar common occurrence at work; she said, “During the same shift, when I am training newly hired employees, I take on the role of a leader although I am not officially in a managerial role. Then, when I interact with my


122

Thomas Sy and Tara McCoy

supervisor or employees who have more seniority than me, I think of myself as a follower. This happens several times each time I work.” The above experience describes how employees may enact both leader and follower roles and the influence of different contextual cues (e.g., levels of hierarchy) in shaping the (leader and follower) roles that individuals enact. The example illustrates the phenomenon of Leader!Follower Switching (LFS), which we define as the intrapersonal process of dynamically switching between leader and follower roles. This process may operate independent of formally designated roles (e.g., managerial assignments and titles). For example, middle managers (i.e., employees with a formal title designated by the organization) may enact both a follower role when discussing strategic plans with the CEO, and a leader role when interacting with their subordinates to implement strategic plans. Similarly, as illustrated in the above example, employees with no formal management designation may enact both leader and follower roles. Although implicated in the literature (e.g., Pearce & Conger, 2002), LFS has not been directly investigated perhaps because leadership and followership are typically portrayed as static roles. Accordingly, we bring this prevalent and core assumption to the foreground for direct investigation. In this chapter, we first define LFS and articulate its key theoretical tenets. Second, we describe the four styles of LFS (i.e., Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation) that reflect individual differences in preference for switching between leader and follower roles. Finally, we propose a research agenda for investigating LFS focusing on its measurement, its antecedents (e.g., leader and follower experiences, implicit theories of leadership and followership, organizational hierarchy, and culture), and its outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, relationship quality, and leadership effectiveness).

7.1.

LFS: Integrating the Domains of Leadership and Followership

Traditional theories of leadership focus primarily on leaders and their behaviors. These are considered leader-centric theories (Hollander, 1992a, 1992b). Similarly, follower-centric theories (Meindl, 1995) focus on followers in order to understand leaders and leadership, such as the effects of followers’ self-concepts on charismatic leadership (Howell & Shamir, 2005) and the effects of followers’ personality on transformational leadership (Felfe & Schyns, 2010). Whereas most research tends to be leader-centric or follower-centric, we advance the literature in the current research by taking an integrative approach because leadership and followership are inherently interdependent in LFS. Certain roles do not exist without the presence of the other (Brown, 1965); there would be no leaders or leadership without followers, and vice versa. Essentially, both roles dynamically influence each other (Sy, 2010). By integrating the duality of leadership and followership, LFS may enhance our understanding of both domains. LFS emphasizes the dual roles of employees. That is, some employees can be both leaders and followers. Moreover, LFS highlights the Dynamism of this duality, such that the roles are permeable and individuals may dynamically shift between

Model of Leader and Follower Switching

123

both roles. This duality and Dynamism may explain when employees may enact leader and follower roles. Therefore, investigating LFS may help us further understand why and when individuals follow or lead. As such, although the primary aim of this book is followership, we take a holistic approach to focus on both leadership and followership given they are highly interdependent within the context of LFS.

7.2.

LFS within Extant Leadership Literature

Although LFS has not been directly investigated, it is implicated in the leadership literature (e.g., Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Pearce & Conger, 2002; Uhl-Bien, 2006; Yammarino, Salas, Serban, Shirreffs, & Shuffler, 2012). Moreover, evidence for the enactment of multiple social roles is well established in the social psychological literature, which lends support for the dual enactment of leader and follower roles. For example, individuals may possess multiple self-schemas (Tajfel, 2010). Moreover, individuals may activate different selfschemas as a function of context, such as describing the self in terms of conditions “I am … when” as opposed to traits “I am” (Mendoza-Denton, Ayduk, Mischel, Shoda, & Testa, 2001). Individuals’ activated self-schemas (as leaders or followers) can trigger corresponding behavioral enactment as predicted by the PerceptionBehavior Link (as described below) (Chartrand, Maddux, & Lakin, 2005; Chen & Bargh, 1997; Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). Given the novel nature of our construct, we review relevant literature, such as the collectivistic leadership literature, to develop further our conception of LFS. A commonality among the multiple theories that fall within the collectivistic leadership category is that leadership is distributed and may reside in multiple individuals at different times. Fundamentally, these individuals rise and recede as leaders within their groups temporally based on the context. Within the collectivistic leadership body of work, Shared Leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2002) is particularly relevant because it most directly addresses the organizational behavior Dynamics that are inherent in LFS. A key tenet of Shared Leadership is that leadership is shared amongst group members, and the leader role is assumed momentarily by the individual most suited to lead the task; all others assume follower roles. A main assumption is that multiple individuals in the group may enact the role of leader at different times. Similarly, the same individuals may enact follower roles when they are not in the role of leader. Thus, this process is Dynamic such that individuals may switch between leader and follower roles overtime. Due to the dual roles displayed in multiple individuals, Shared Leadership clearly demonstrates the duality of leader and follower roles. It highlights that one’s role is not solely defined by one’s formal designation within an organization and one may enact both roles as leaders and followers (Denis, Langley, & Sergi, 2012). Given their shared assumptions, it is important to make a distinction between LFS and Shared Leadership. LFS is intra-personal in focus, highlighting the process

124


of Dynamic switching between leader and follower roles within an individual, whereas Shared Leadership is inter-personal in focus, highlighting the distribution of leadership responsibilities across multiple individuals (Pearce & Conger, 2002). Moreover, unlike Shared Leadership, LFS is not restricted to teams; the role switching process resides in the individual. We posit that LFS is a contextually-sensitive intrapersonal process such that stimuli in the environment serve as cues to activate leader or follower roles. As our opening example illustrates, the mere presence of an entry-level employee may serve as a cue that activates a leader role within the individual. This role activation occurs prior to any interpersonal exchange (i.e., it is not necessarily a function of interpersonal processes). Similarly, the mere presence of a more senior supervisor may serve as a cue that activates a follower role in an individual. As another example, clothing (such as rank designation on military uniforms) may also serve as contextual cues in the intrapersonal process of activating leader and follower roles (e.g., Frank & Gilovich, 1988). In addition to Shared Leadership, a related process to LFS is DeRue and Ashford’s (2010) notion of granting and claiming leader and follower identities. They theorized “various contextual factors can cause leader and follower identities to shift over time and across situations” (p. 628). Specifically, they posit follower and leader roles are flexibly negotiated between people; individuals are able to “claim” or “grant” leader and follower roles based on how individuals conceptualize the construction of leadership, the clarity and visibility of the grants and claims, and previous interactions of claims and grants. Essentially, their theory implies that individuals’ self-schemas as leaders and followers are not static. These self-schemas change as a function of interpersonal negotiations; “When a focal person claims a leader or follower identity, this stimulates other people in the social environment to consider seeing that focal person in accordance with that particular identity. They communicate their acceptance of this perception by granting that particular identity to the focal person through their words or actions (directly or indirectly)” (DeRue & Ashford, 2010, p. 632). Although related, DeRue and Ashford’s notion of negotiated leader!follower self-schemas is complimentary to LFS. Whereas DeRue and Ashford primarily focus on the relational (interpersonal) Dynamics of negotiated leader!follower self-schemas, LFS is an intrapersonal process that may be independent of relational Dynamics. Moreover, LFS also reflect a trait-like construct (vs. Dynamic interpersonal processes) consisting of individual differences in preference for switching between leader and follower roles. Another noteworthy difference is that DeRue and Ashford’s theory is focused on “identity” formation, whereas LFS is focused on “roles,” which as we explain below encompasses schema activation and corresponding behavioral enactment (Smith, 2007).

7.3.

Key Tenets of LFS

Inherent in our definition of LFS (as an intrapersonal process of dynamically switching between leader and follower roles) is the assumption that the LFS process


125

involves the following key tenets. First, LFS is predicated on the premise that individuals must possess schemas for leader and follower roles (i.e., implicit theories of leadership and followership) (Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Lord & Maher, 1991; Sy, 2010) in order for role switching to occur. These schemas are developed from prior experiences (Keller, 2000). For switching to occur, individuals must have internalized the cognitive, emotional, and behavioral associations relevant to those schemas. In addition, although implicit theories of leadership and followership may be shared, the specific enactment of the role (i.e. the behaviors) depends on individuals’ endorsement for certain implicit theories (Sy, 2010; Sy et al., 2010). For example, individuals endorsing the Dynamic (vs. Tyranny) leader prototype may display more charismatic (vs. domineering) behaviors. Second, leader and follower roles are permeable, and individuals differ in the degree to which they role switch. The degree of role switching may reflect an individual difference variable, whereby some individuals are more capable than others in role switching (see discussion below on the four styles of LFS). Simultaneously, contextual cues may shape the role switching process. For example, contextual cues could involve others’ (leader or follower) roles (e.g., the example in the opening paragraph illustrates how a newly hired employee or the CEO may respectively serve as cues for leader or follower enactment) or task demands (e.g., the need for leadership in a newly formed group may trigger the enactment of a leader role). Thus, LFS may be a function of the presence of contextual cues, which activate different leader or follower schemas that are subsequently behaviorally enacted (via the PerceptionBehavior Link explained below). Certain leader and follower roles can also be activated due to triggered memories of similar contextual situations when individuals have assumed those roles (Smith, 1996). When individuals encounter situations that are similar to previous situations, they may recall roles they enacted during those times, which then trigger the enactment of the same roles again. However, the influence of contextual cues on behaviors does not necessarily lead to compulsory reactions. For contextual cues to influence behaviors, cues must be cognitively accessible (the schema is implicitly or explicitly activated) and relevant to the current context (Hong, Benet-Martı´ nez, Morris, & Chiu, 2003; Hong, Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martı´ nez, 2000). Third, individuals behaviorally enact the (leader or follower) roles that are mentally activated. Once contextual cues activate certain leader or follower schemas, the Perception-Behavior Link posits that behavioral enactment will ensue. The Perception-Behavior Link states that the activation of perceptual representation (e.g., leader or follower schemas) increases the tendency to behave in ways that correspond with that cognition (for a review, see Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001). Ample evidence has demonstrated that perceptions lead to corresponding behavioral enactment (e.g., Bargh et al., 1996; Chartrand et al., 2005; Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). A strong link exists between perceptions and behaviors because just as schemas are mentally represented, so are behavioral responses, and the activation of one leads to the activation of the other to the extent that these perceptions and behaviors have been previous activated frequently and consistently over time (Collins & Loftus, 1975; Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). Thus, individuals

126


are more likely to behave as leaders (or followers) when their self-schemas as leaders (or followers) are activated. Fourth, the LFS process can be controlled (conscious) or automatic (preconscious). Extrapolating from past research on controlled and automatic processes, research has shown that processes similar to LFS may be consciously enacted at first (e.g., when individuals are learning to lead) and subsequently, become more automatic as individuals become more proficient, and less effortful processing is required (Smith & DeCoster, 2000; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). For example, a novel situation may call for a controlled, conscious approach (e.g., individuals may consciously decide to enact a leadership role when meeting their subordinates for the first time). In contrast, an automatic, unconscious approach will be used for routine situations that do not require much effortful processing (Cunningham, Raye, & Johnson, 2004), such as when a leader interacts with their subordinates in daily meetings to review task progress. Accordingly, LFS likely reflects a combination of automatic and controlled processes.

7.4.

Four Styles of LFS

Individuals may differ in their capacity to role switch. Although role switching has not been directly examined in the leadership domain, it has received much attention in the acculturation and multiculturalism literature (Berry, 1997; Hong et al., 2000; Rudmin, 2003; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). Accordingly, we extrapolate key findings from this literature to inform our theoretical model of LFS style because the role switching process for leaders and followers are likely to parallel the basic processes in the acculturation and multiculturalism literature. Specifically, we have conceptualized the four styles of LFS on the basis of research indicating individuals can switch their cognitions and behaviors as a function of context (Benet-Martı´ nez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Hong et al., 2000; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). Individuals possess multiple self-schemas, with certain schemas enacted at different times and contexts (Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002). Similar to the Perception-Behavior Link, different self-schemas may be activated in individuals that influence how they perceive themselves, as well as how they behave (Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Segall, Lonner, & Berry, 1998). Individuals’ ability to switch between multiple perspectives has been documented in a variety of domains, such as self-construals, attributions, ethnic identity, values, decision making, cooperation, and among others (for a review, see Benet-Martı´ nez, in press). Although the four LFS styles likely adhere to the same theoretical tenets described above, we propose that individuals differ in their capacity for LFS based on research showing that individuals vary in the degree to which they possess multiple self-schemas and their ability to switch between these self-schemas (Berry, 2003; Hong et al., 2000). Specifically, we posit individuals in organizational contexts simultaneously deal with two central orientations: (1) the extent to which they are motivated and allowed to enact leadership roles and (2) the extent to which they are


127

motivated and allowed to enact followership roles. The ways in which individuals address these central issues may determine their endorsement for the LFS styles, and corresponding behavioral enactment of leadership and followership roles. Negotiating these central orientations results in four distinct styles (see Figure 7.1): Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation. These styles parallel the findings of previous empirical research on the influence of activated self-schemas in shaping role enactment (Benet-Martı´ nez, in press; Benet-Martı´ nez et al., 2002; Berry, 1997; Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Hong et al., 2000; Kim-Jo, Benet-Martı´ nez, & Ozer, 2010; Verkuyten & Pouliasi, 2006). We describe each of the four LFS styles below.

7.4.1.

Dynamism Style

Individuals with the Dynamism style are high on both leader and follower orientations. Because they have internalized both roles, they frequently switch between leader and follower roles. Of the four styles, Dynamic individuals exhibit the most frequent switching. Within organizational contexts, mid-level managers are the most likely to possess this style given their frequency of contact with both supervisors and subordinates that require them to enact different roles. In a single day a midlevel manager may switch between leader and follower roles multiple times. They may enact a follower role when interacting with senior-level executives, and may

Leader Orientation High

Low

Dynamism (e.g., Middle-Level Managers)

Follower-Stasis (e.g., Entry-Level Worker)

Low

Leader-Stasis (e.g., Senior-Level Executives)

Capsulation (e.g., Technical Experts)

Follower Orientation

High

Figure 7.1:

A model of leader!follower switching styles.

128


enact a leader role when interacting with direct subordinates. Similarly, the Dynamic style may be most prevalent in organizations that promote collectivistic leadership that encourage and establish norms for Dynamic role switching (Pearce & Conger, 2002; Yammarino et al., 2012). 7.4.2.

Leader-Stasis Style

Individuals with the Leader-Stasis style are high on leader and low on follower orientations. Whereas these individuals may occasionally engage in LFS, the degree of their switching is more static in comparison to individuals with the Dynamism style. On balance, Leader-Stasis individuals tend to enact and sustain leadership roles more often than they do followership roles. Within organizational contexts, senior-level executives may possess this style given the frequency in which they are required to enact leader roles. Although the leader role is the stasis point, individuals who possess the Leader-Stasis style may at times switch to a follower role. For example, when interacting with the CEO, senior-level executives may take on a more subordinate role. However, enacting the follower role does not reflect their genuine tendency, and they revert back to their leader-stasis point naturally. 7.4.3.

Follower-Stasis

Individuals with the Follower-Stasis style are high on follower and low on leader orientations. As with the Leader-Stasis style, individuals with the Follower-Stasis style may occasionally engage in LFS, although the degree of switching is more static compared to individuals with the Dynamism style. In contrast to the LeaderStasis style, individuals with the Follower-Stasis style tend to enact and sustain followership roles more often than they do leadership roles. Within organizational contexts, entry-level employees and those in the lower hierarchy of the organization are likely to possess this style because they may lack certain skills and experiences to enact leadership. Moreover, organizational policy and norms (e.g., job descriptions with explicit roles and responsibilities) may formally constrain them to the followerstasis point (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Indeed, the Follower-Stasis style may be the default stasis point for most entry-level employees (Pillai & Uhl-Bien, 2007). 7.4.4.

Capsulation

Individuals with the Capsulation style are low on both leader and follower orientations. These individuals tend not to perceive themselves as either leaders or followers, and consequently are less likely to enact these roles. Capsulation individuals do not prefer to supervise others nor do they prefer to be supervised. Consequently, they are the least Dynamic of the four styles in terms of engaging in LFS. In organizational contexts, they are likely independent contributors who are valued for their technical expertise. They may be capsulized in their role as technical experts and


129

shielded from the responsibilities of leadership and followership. An example of Capsulation includes IBM Fellows. These individuals are able to pursue technical innovation without the necessity of supervision or to supervise others (“IBM Awards Highest Technical Honor,” 2013).

7.5.

Research Agenda

Having explicated the theoretical foundation of LFS, we propose an agenda for investigating this novel construct. Our discussion is not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, we focus on those that are most pressing and germane to LFS. In particular, we focus on assessment, antecedents, and outcomes of LFS, which include person and environmental variables that affect LFS. 7.5.1.

Operationalizing and Assessing LFS

An immediate first step is the development and validation of an instrument for assessing LFS. Our conceptualization of LFS points to two domains of assessment. The first domain concerns the general process of LFS, targeting degrees of role switching. As noted above, a central question is the degree to which individuals engage in LFS. Moreover, consistent with our conceptualization, an assessment of LFS should encompass both self-schemas (e.g., identification with leader and follower schemas) and behavioral enactment. Our emerging research provides some empirical evidence. We asked adult workers to self-report their experience with LFS, targeting the extent of switching (e.g., “At work, how many times do you think you switch between follower and leader roles?”). In addition, we also inquired about individuals’ behavioral enactment of these roles (i.e., the degree to which they behaviorally perform these roles) (e.g., “Depending on the situation, I sometimes take the lead while in a group and sometimes I follow.”). Our preliminary research indicates 72 percent of employees reported switching between leader and follower roles three or more times per day on average while at work. In addition, 92 percent of employees reported switching between leader and follower roles on a weekly basis. Our preliminary evidence provides support for the LFS construct, indicating the majority of individuals engage in LFS. Beyond survey assessments, LFS should be investigated in experimental settings. Experimental research can address the degree to which individuals engage in LFS. Moreover, experimental research can address questions beyond the limitations of surveys, such as if there are any sequencing effects for LFS. For example, how difficult is it for individuals to enact a leader role when they previously enacted a follower role and vice versa? It may be that once individuals enact a follower role, they are prevented from switching and enacting a leader role because others may continue to perceive them as a follower (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Similarly, individuals may not be able to shift their self-schemas (as a leader or follower) in the same environmental context (e.g., same group member composition, same task) and

130


may require a shift in environmental context for further role switching to occur (Hanges, Lord, & Dickson, 2000). Thus, the development of a survey instrument is crucial to investigating LFS in the field, which is complemented by experimental research that can address questions beyond the limitations of field survey methodology. The second domain of assessment concerns the four LFS styles. Whereas the first domain assesses the degree to which individuals engage in LFS, the second domain assesses their stylistic orientation. Thus, individuals may role switch often (frequency) and yet vary in their stasis point such that an individual with a Leader-Stasis style may spend more time (duration) enacting the leader role, whereas an individual with a Follower-Stasis style may spend more time enacting the follower role. Because the LFS styles are conceived along two dimensions, it may be best to avoid the use of bipolar unidimensional scales. For example, a unidimensional scale item may be “Which role (leader vs. follower) do you often perform at work?” and the response choices may be 1 = mostly follower, and 5 = mostly leader. Unidimensional scales may be problematic because they may equate endorsement for one dimension (e.g., leadership orientation) to a lack of endorsement for the other dimension (e.g., followership orientation). Accordingly, a bidimensional scale, where leader and follower orientation is measured in two separate scales, may best capture the four LFS orientations. For example, a respective scale item for the leader and follower orientations could be “How often do you perform the role of leader?,” and “How often do you perform the role of follower?” and the response choices can range from 1 = not often to 5 = very often. LFS styles would be determined by individuals’ relative scores on these two dimensions. For example, the Dynamism style would be reflected by scores one standard deviation above the mean on both dimensions. Similarly, the Leader-Stasis style would be reflected by scores one standard deviation above the leader orientation dimension and one standard deviation below the follower orientation dimension. Alternatively, each of the LFS styles may be directly assessed. Such an instrument would include four scales with items capturing the Dynamism, Leader-Stasis, Follower-Stasis, and Capsulation styles. For example, a respective scale item for the Dynamism and Leader-Stasis styles may be “I perform the role of leader and follower equally” and “I tend to perform the role of leader more often than the role of follower.” Individuals would receive a score on each scale, and their highest score on a specific scale determines their LFS style.

7.5.2.

Antecedents of LFS

7.5.2.1. Implicit theories Implicit theories of leadership and followership may influence the frequency of role switching, as well as LFS styles. Implicit Leadership Theories (ILTs) and Implicit Followership Theories (IFTs) reflect lay people’s shared schemas of leadership and followership, respectively (Epitropaki et al., 2013; Lord & Maher, 1991; Sy, 2010).


131

ILTs and IFTs serve as a sense making function to understand and respond to leaders and followers. For example, individuals possessing characteristics that match lay people’s ILTs are more likely to be judged as leaders and consequently, afforded the discretionary power to lead (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Similarly, followers possessing characteristics that match lay people’s conception of a good follower (IFTs) are more likely to receive favorable treatment (Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson, 2012). ILTs and IFTs represent subjective realities and perceptions, which are powerful determinants of behaviors even in the presence of objective facts and evidence (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, in press). We posit that individuals’ implicit theories may influence the degree to which they switch, as well as shape their LFS style. Specifically, individuals may develop endorsements for certain implicit theories over time (Hanges et al., 2000; Sy, 2010, 2011) such that the endorsed theories are more easily and frequently activated. Consistent with the Perception-Behavior Link, the frequency of ILTs and IFTs activation will correspond with the frequency of leader and follower role enactments, respectively. Thus, individuals who have internalized more ILTs relative to IFTs are more likely to exhibit a Leader-Stasis style. Conversely, individuals who have internalized more IFTs relative to ILTs are more likely to exhibit a FollowerStasis style. Another implicit theory relevant to LFS frequency and style is Leadership Structure Schemas, defined as individuals’ preference for leadership structure (hierarchical vs. shared leadership) (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). A hierarchical leadership schema views leadership as most effective when enacted by a single leader, whereas a shared leadership schema views leadership as most effective when shared by multiple group members. Accordingly, a shared leadership schema, in comparison to a hierarchical leadership schema, may be associated with more frequent LFS because individuals who possess the shared leadership schema are more willing to share leadership responsibilities. Moreover, a shared leadership schema may be associated with the Dynamism style because individuals with this schema may have internalized norms and expectations that leadership and followership responsibilities are dynamically distributed among group members. In comparison, a hierarchical leadership schema may be associated with the Leader-Stasis and Follower-Stasis styles because the enactment of leadership and followership roles among members are expected to be relatively more static. 7.5.2.2. Leader and follower experiences Previous opportunities to engage in leader and follower roles may shape LFS styles. For example, a lack of opportunities to enact leadership roles may ingrain a Follower-Stasis orientation overtime. Similarly, an abundance of opportunities to enact leadership roles (e.g., gifted student athletes who are regularly selected to be leaders regardless of the sports activities) may ingrain a Leader-Stasis orientation overtime. Similarly, a lack of opportunities to enact leadership and followership opportunities may ingrain a Capsulation orientation. For example, when given the opportunity, Bill Gates voluntarily relinquished his leadership (CEO) role at Microsoft, and chose the technical role of Chief Software Architect (a new role he

132


created) perhaps because he naturally possesses a Capsulation orientation fostered during his formative childhood experiences focused on computer programming that was largely devoid of opportunities to enact leader and follower roles (Gates, 1996). In addition to past experiences, current opportunities may also influence individuals’ LFS orientations. Thus, organizations that value and offer training as well as opportunities to exercise both leadership and followership enactment may instill a Dynamism style. For example, Gore Industries has a culture that not only fosters proactive followership, but all employees are afforded formal opportunities to lead company initiatives regardless of their formal hierarchical rank and title (Hamel, 2007). Beyond leader and follower experiences, gender may be another demographic variable that shapes LFS orientation, such that preferences for masculine leadership (e.g., leaders who are male, strong, competitive) may be more associated with a Leader-Stasis styles because both may be related to schemas regarding power and status (Galinsky, Hall, & Cuddy, 2013). Age may also be related to role switching frequency and LFS style, given that older individuals may develop and internalize more diverse self-schemas about their roles as leaders and followers because of their diverse experiences. The frequency and diversity of internalized self-schemas may have a direct correspondence to individuals’ flexibility and frequency of leader and follower role enactment (Chartrand et al., 2005; Chen & Bargh, 1997; Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). 7.5.2.3. Organizational context Organizational hierarchy may influence the degree to which individuals engage in LFS, as well as their LFS style. Organizational hierarchy may dictate the frequency of switching. We noted earlier mid-level managers may engage in more LFS in comparison to senior-level executives and entry-level employees, given the nature and demands of the jobs at the different organizational levels. Thus, we predict an inverted U-shape relationship, such that LFS occurs less frequently at the low and high end of the organizational hierarchy, whereas LFS occurs more frequently at the midpoint of the hierarchy. Organizational hierarchy may also influence LFS style. Specifically, the Follower-Stasis and Leader-Stasis styles may be most frequent at the low and high end of the hierarchy, respectively. The Dynamism style may reside most frequently at the midpoint of the hierarchy. Beyond hierarchy, organizational culture may influence the degree to which individuals engage in LFS, as well as the distribution of LFS styles. For example, organizations such as General Electric (Tichy & Cohen, 2002) and the United States military that highly emphasize leadership development may foster more LeaderStasis styles. Similarly, organizations such as Gore Industries and Whole Foods (Hamel, 2007) that emphasize team-based development may foster more Dynamism styles. At a broader level, the degree to which individuals engage in LFS, as well as the distribution of LFS styles may be affected by national culture. For example, differences in collectivism and individualism may shape LFS orientation. Individuals from collectivistic cultures may be more associated with Dynamism and


133

Follower-Stasis styles because collectivism creates an orientation towards the team (vs. self) and the maintenance of harmony (Venus, Mao, Lanaj, & Johnson, 2012). Accordingly, individuals in collectivistic cultures may have internalized norms to share leadership responsibilities (Dynamism Style) and to accommodate others to maintain harmony, such as adopting a Follower-Stasis style so that others may lead.

7.6.

LFS and Work Outcomes

How do LFS impact workplace outcomes? What is the relationship between the LFS styles and workplace outcomes? Research suggests that individuals who can successfully integrate multiple self-schemas (e.g., see themselves as both leaders and followers) tend to have better outcomes (Berry et al., 2006). Extrapolating from this research, it would seem feasible to reason that individuals with Dynamism styles may be associated with more positive work outcomes because these individuals may possess more flexible attributes, allowing them to be more adaptive and successful. Moreover, given societal preference for leadership, individuals with Leader-Stasis styles may also be associated with positive work outcomes because this style may manifest behaviors and goal pursuits (pursuing promotions and career opportunities) that are congruent with societal ideals, and therefore rewarded (Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Conversely, Follower-Stasis styles may be negatively associated with work outcomes because this style may manifest behaviors and goal pursuits that are incongruent with societal ideals (Pillai & Uhl-Bien, 2007), and therefore lack rewards. To the extent that Capsulation styles reflect a focus on technical expertise, this style may be positively related with technical task performance. Simultaneously, given the lack of focus on leadership, Capsulation styles may have a negative or neutral relationship with leadership outcomes. Beyond these general patterns, we discuss the relationship between LFS and specific workplace outcomes below. 7.6.1.

Job Satisfaction

LFS may require diligent monitoring of one’s environment and the need to continuously adapt to the demands of the environment. Consequently, LFS may negatively impact job satisfaction to the extent that role switching is mentally taxing. Occupation type may dictate the degree that one engages in LFS, and thus may also play a role in the relationship between LFS and job satisfaction. For example, occupations in the service industry that require more contact with people of differing supervisory levels may require more switching than occupations in the manufacturing industry that involve more contact with machinery and technology. Thus, service jobs may lead to less job satisfaction than do manufacturing jobs to the extent that jobs in the service industries require more LFS that is more mentally taxing. However, the relationship between role switching and job satisfaction may be

134


moderated by LFS orientation. Individuals with Dynamism styles may not only find role switching not mentally taxing, they may find it energizing. Conversely, these same individuals may have lower job satisfaction when their natural preference for dynamically switching between leader and follower roles is not accommodated by their occupation. All this suggests that job satisfaction may be determined by the fit between LFS orientation and individuals’ occupations. 7.6.2.

Relationship Quality

LFS styles may have implications for relationship quality (e.g., LMX) (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Specifically, congruence in leader and follower endorsement for LFS styles may impact the quality of relationships. When leaders’ and followers’ LFS styles are congruent, relationship quality is high because the expectations of both parties are met. For example, when leaders and followers possess Dynamism styles, relationship quality will be high when both parties share the leadership responsibilities that each expect from the other. Conversely, relationship quality may be low when LFS styles are incongruent. For example, relationship quality may be low when followers possess a Dynamism style and leaders possess a LeaderStasis style because leaders are not likely to offer followers opportunities to lead, and the unmet expectations of followers to share leadership responsibilities may result in follower dissatisfaction with their leader. Alternatively, followers with Dynamism styles may attempt to assume leadership responsibilities, which may be interpreted as a form of insurrection for those who hold a Leader-Stasis style. 7.6.3.

Leadership Effectiveness

Leadership effectiveness is a function of leaders’ ability to influence followers (Yukl, 2001), and the ability to influence followers is partly based on followers’ perceptions of their leaders (Epitropaki et al., 2013; Lord & Maher, 1991). Specifically, followers possess schemas regarding the norms and expectations for leaders. Research has consistently shown leaders who best resemble these norms and expectations are afforded the power and discretion to lead effectively (e.g., Hogg, 2001; van Knippenberg, & Hogg, 2003). Individuals who do not resemble these norms and expectations may not be viewed as leaders and consequently, they have little influence over others. In line with this logic, leaders may have more influence over followers to the extent that leaders’ LFS styles match that of followers (i.e., leaders’ and followers’ LFS styles are congruent). For example, followers who endorse the Dynamism style may expect leaders to share leadership responsibilities with them. Individuals who match followers’ expectations (i.e., leaders enact a Dynamism style and share leadership responsibilities) are thus viewed as more leader-like and afforded influence by followers. Conversely, followers who endorse a Leader-Stasis style may not have such expectations to share leadership responsibilities, and such attempts to share leadership may be viewed as leaders’ shirking their leadership


135

responsibilities. Such a perception would render the leader ineffective. In short, much can be gained by examining the relationship between LFS orientation and leadership effectiveness. 7.6.4.

LFS and Extant Leadership Theories

An interesting line of research could examine the relationship between LFS and extant leadership theories. It is important to investigate the degree of LFS with extant leadership theories given some theories seemingly have presumed a static view of leadership and followership. To the extent that this presumption is violated, these leadership theories may require further revision. As such, much can be gained by challenging the presumption of a static view of leadership and followership. In addition, it is possible that certain LFS styles may shape the type of leadership individuals enact. For example, individuals with Dynamism styles may be more likely to enact Shared Leadership (Pearce & Conger, 2002) and Transformational Leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2005) because these both theories hold a positive view of leaders and followers as valued contributors, whose contributions come in the form of leadership and followership. Similarly, individuals with Leader-Stasis styles may be more likely to enact Paternalistic leadership (Pellegrini & Scandura, 2008). In short, further insights may be gained (e.g., surfacing hidden assumptions about the Dynamism of leader and follower roles) by directly investigating the relationship between LFS and extant leadership theories.

7.7.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have proposed a novel construct on LFS. We delineated the key theoretical tenets of LFS. First, LFS is predicated on the premise that individuals possess schemas for leader and follower roles (i.e., implicit theories of leadership and followership) (Epitropaki et al., 2013; Lord & Maher, 1991; Sy, 2010) and role switching involve the activation of these schemas. Second, LFS may be a function of individual differences (i.e., the four LFS styles) and context (e.g., contextual cues trigger leader and follower schemas). Third, LFS encompasses behavioral enactment (i.e., individuals behaviorally enact the leader or follower roles that are mentally activated) that is explained by the Perception-Behavior Link. Fourth, LFS processes can operate in controlled (conscious) or automatic (preconscious) fashion. Having explicated the theoretical foundation of LFS, we propose an agenda for future research, focusing on assessment, antecedents, and outcomes of LFS. Preliminary research on LFS is underway, with evidence indicating that the majority of adult workers (92%) engage in LFS. The prevalence of LFS suggests it may correspondingly have equally wide impact in the workplace. We hope our discussion has been sufficiently stimulating such that readers will make the switch to focus their research and intervention efforts on LFS.

136


References Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230. Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2005). Transformational leadership. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (in press). Multiculturalism: Cultural, personality, and social processes. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benet-Martı´ nez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492!516. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46, 5!34. Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista & G. Marı´ n (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17!37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 303!332. Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology. New York, NY: Free Press. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1217!1234. Chartrand, T., Maddux, W., & Lakin, J. (2005). Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiquitous utility and motivational moderators of nonconscious mimicry. In R. Hassin, J. Uleman & J. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 334!361). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioral confirmation processes: The selffulfilling consequences of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 541!560. Collins, A., & Loftus, E. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407!428. Cunningham, W. A., Raye, C. L., & Johnson, M. K. (2004). Implicit and explicit evaluation: FMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1717!1729. Denis, J. L., Langley, A., & Sergi, V. (2012). Leadership in the plural. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 211!283. DeRue, D., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35, 627!647. Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception!behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in experimental social psychology, 33, 1!40. Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865!877. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659!676. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659


137

Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858!881. Felfe, J., & Schyns, B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 393!410. Frank, M., & Gilovich, T. (1988). The dark side of self- and social perception: Black uniforms and aggression in professional sports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 74!85. Galinsky, A., Hall, E., & Cuddy, A. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24, 498!506. Gates, B. (1996). The road ahead. New York, NY: Viking Press. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader!member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219!247. Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Hanges, P., Lord, R., & Dickson, M. (2000). An information-processing perspective on leadership and culture: A case for connectionist architecture. Applied Psychology: An international review, 49, 133!161. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184!200. Hollander, E. P. (1992a). The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71!75. Hollander, E. P. (1992b). Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly, 3, 43!54. Hong, Y. Y., Benet-Martı´ nez, V., Chiu, C. Y., & Morris, M. W. (2003). Boundaries of cultural influence: Construct activation as a mechanism for cultural differences in social perception. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 453!464. Hong, Y. Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C. Y., & Benet-Martı´ nez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709!720. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96!112. IBM Awards Highest Technical Honor. (2013). IBM awards highest technical honor to eight new Fellows as company celebrates 50th anniversary of program. Retrieved from http:// online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130403-900037.html?mod = crnews. Accessed on July 9, 2013. Keller, T. (2000). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589!607. Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martı´ nez, V., & Ozer, D. (2010). Culture and interpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role of acculturation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 41, 264!269. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing — Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622-633. doi:10.1177/0956797612457686 Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.

138


Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329!341. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78!102. Mendoza-Denton, R., Ayduk, O., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Testa, A. (2001). Person x situation interactionism in self-encoding (I am ... when ...): Implications for affect regulation and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 533!544. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2002). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Incorporated. Pellegrini, E., & Scandura, T. (2008). Paternalistic leadership: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 34, 566!593. Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7, 3!32. Pillai, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership (pp. 187!210). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical history of the acculturation psychology of assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. Review of general psychology, 7, 3!37. Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53, 1101!1110. Smith, E. (2007). Social Psychology. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Smith, E. R. (1996). What do connectionism and social psychology offer each other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 893!912. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108!131. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220!247. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 113, 73!84. Sy, T. (2011, August). I think, therefore I do: Influence of leaders’ and followers’ implicit followership theories on relationship quality and follower performance. Presented at the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX. Sy, T., Shore, L. M., Strauss, J., Shore, T. H., Tram, S., Whiteley, P., & Ikeda-Muromachi, K. (2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race!occupation fit: The case of Asian Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 902!919. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (2010). Social identity and intergroup relations (Vol. 7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Wall Street Journal. (2013, April 3). IBM awards highest technical honor to eight new fellows as company celebrates 50th anniversary of program. Retrieved from http://online.wsj. com/article/PR-CO-20130403-900037.html?mod=crnews. Accessed on July 9, 2013. Tichy, N., & Cohen, E. (2002). Leadership engine: How winning companies build leadership at every level. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654!676.


139

van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership effectiveness in organizations. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 245!297). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Venus, M., Mao, C., Lanaj, K., & Johnson, R. (2012). Collectivistic leadership requires a collective identity. Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 432!436. Verkuyten, M., & Pouliasi, K. (2006). Biculturalism and group identification: The mediating role of identification in cultural frame-switching. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 312!326. Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822!834. Yammarino, F., Salas, E., Serban, A., Shirreffs, K., & Shuffler, M. (2012). Collectivistic leadership approaches: Putting the “we” in leadership science and practice. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 382!402. Yukl, G. (2001). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chapter 8

Leading to Develop Truly Effective Followers Kimberly S. Jaussi and Amy E. Randel

Abstract Purpose ! Although the field of followership is gaining popularity among both academics and practitioners, to date scholars have not considered Robert Kelley’s call for the study of followership development. This chapter answers that call by considering how the development of effective followership can occur, particularly within the leader!follower relationship. Design/methodology/approach ! This chapter builds on extant theory on transformational leadership and identity to suggest ways in which effective followership, along Kelley’s dimensions, can be created in organizations. Findings ! Implications for leadership development programs are discussed, highlighting the need to shift leader development toward competencies that then allow leaders to develop truly effective followers. Research limitations/implications ! Future research should examine why and how people follow and should include building theory on followership based on such theories as Implicit Leadership Theory, Leader-Member Exchange Theory, and the Romance of Leadership perspective. Practical implications ! Creating training opportunities aimed at specifically building independent thinking and active followership for both leaders and followers is expected to create more effective followers. A mindset committed to developing effective followers will also encourage followers to help their leaders be more effective and question assumptions. Effective followers are likely to be engaged in their work with high levels of performance and low turnover, because of developmental leadership and higher expectations.


142

Kimberly S. Jaussi and Amy E. Randel

Originality/value ! This chapter integrates theory on leadership and identity to address how effective followers can be developed. Keywords: Leadership; effective followership; follower development

So followership dominates our lives and organizations, but not our thinking, because our preoccupation with leadership keeps us from considering the nature and importance of the follower. — Robert Kelley For many years, leadership has had the limelight in terms of the employee/supervisor focus in the organizational effectiveness literature. That illumination, however, may be misguided, as it ignores the importance of half of the equation: the followers. Thankfully, since Robert Kelley’s seminal 1988 Harvard Business Review article, “In Praise of Followers,” a growing focus on followers is occurring. Yet, while the focus on followership is growing, we know little about how to best foster the development of followers. For years, we have focused on leadership development, but little work has been done on effective followership development. How can leaders help develop followers to follow in a way that lands them squarely in the “effective followers” quadrant? In this chapter, we consider how leaders can set the stage and lead to develop and sustain effective followership. Through a review of extant theory, we discuss why individual and collective identity building, role modeling creativity and selfawareness, and setting high expectations are all critical to creating effective followers. We will also integrate the leadership and creativity literature in order to consider how intellectual stimulation and cognitive theory can be brought to bear on the question of how to best develop followers who will question assumptions and think independently. Finally, we consider the leader as designer, exploring ways in which systems must align with the leaders’ goals for followers in order to stimulate and sustain effective followership. What constitutes an effective follower? The growing body of research on followership suggests that effective followers should, at least in some circumstances (see Chapter 9 in this book), be independent thinkers, active in terms of taking initiative and partnering with leaders to make the best decisions rather than obeying leaders without question (e.g., Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Kelley, 1988). Robert Kelley’s work, “In Praise of Followers” offers a four category classification schema for followers, categorizing them along the dimensions of Active versus Passive, and Dependent versus Independent thinkers. “What distinguishes an effective from an ineffective follower is enthusiastic, intelligent, and self-reliant participation — without star billing — in the pursuit of an organizational goal.” (Kelley, p. 3). Kelley’s work highlights four main characteristics of these “effective followers.” First, they have the gift of self-management. According to Kelley, they are able to

Leading to Develop Truly Effective Followers

143

think for themselves, and they think of themselves as relative equals to the leader. They are comfortable questioning assumptions and disagreeing with the leader, and the traditional boundaries of organizational hierarchy are less salient to them. In addition, they are highly committed individuals — ideally to their work, the organization, the task at hand. They are purpose driven. Their self-management skills and commitment are coupled with competence and growth, always seeking to learn more and improve their already high performance. Finally, Kelley notes that they are also courageous. They will not hesitate to paint pictures of truth for their leaders and colleagues, despite the potential cost of doing so. This characteristic of courage in effective followers has also been the focus Ira Chaleff’s work. Chaleff has followed Kelley’s lead in continuing to break new ground in the realm of followership, and in his book, The Courageous Follower, strongly notes this element of not only speaking up for what they believe in, but also in making themselves vulnerable (Chaleff, 2003). For both Kelley and Chaleff, effective followers are comfortable sharing both their successes and failures. Kelley’s work, as well as scholars’ subsequent work with a commendable focus on followers (e.g., Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008), highlights a critical value of effective followers — they keep leaders honest, and focused on strategy, rather than on micromanaging the nuts and bolts of the everyday activities in their organizations. While Kelley’s piece laid the foundational framework for thinking about what an “effective follower” looks like, and for why we should shift our focus from a leader-centric view to one that includes followers, his work also suggested we “cultivate” effective followers. Over 25 years ago, he suggested that we reframe the leader!follower role expectations, hone follower skills through focused training programs, revamp performance management to evaluate followership, and design organizational structures that encourage followership. Yet, many of Kelley’s suggestions have gone unheeded. Kelley recommends that the training program for followers should include focus on improving independent thinking, self-management, disagreeing credibly, aligning commitments, and acting responsibly toward the organization and the leader. Yet, when we look at existing models of leadership development, we are not necessarily training our leaders to develop these characteristics in followers. Therefore, we may not be developing our leaders to actually encourage and develop effective followership. Current models of leadership may touch upon, or implicitly allude to different aspects of the things Kelley recommends, but no theory addresses them all in the spirit of overtly, explicitly, developing effective followers. For example, transformational leadership includes a dimension of Intellectual Stimulation, whereby followers are encouraged to think differently. While thinking differently is a key part of the independent thinking dimension of effective followership, the development of courage is not addressed. Teaching followers to disagree credibly, and to push back on the leader, also needs to be part of leaders developing effective followers. While followers’ constructive disagreement can provide leaders with the honest feedback they need, it is important to note that effective followers understand that there are limits to

144


the amount of disagreement one should have with a leader. Without a minimum level of deference, followers may overstep their follower role to the point that they seem to be undermining rather than helping the leader (Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007). Below, we consider not only transformational leadership but also a number of other dynamics that occur in the leader!follower relationship, and offer suggestions for how the development of effective followership can be created and encouraged by leaders through the different perspective that comes when one considers active, independent thinking, effective followership. Take for example, how effective followers support, and are committed to their leader. It differs significantly from other variations of “loyal” followers. Effective followers, while actively engaging in independent thinking, are fiercely loyal to their leader and support their leaders through their actions and with their sharp thinking. Because they are “active,” their commitment and support for the leader will manifest itself through actions that advance the leader’s and the organization’s goals. By virtue of not being “yes people,” their independent thinking will help the leader consider new perspectives and previously unidentified possible alternatives. “Active” followers help their leaders to develop better-developed strategies and action plans and to refrain from taking action prematurely without considering counterarguments. While leader support is referred to in the literature as commitment to leader (Rodgers, Sauer, & Proell, 2013; Yukl, 2002), these works imply that followers accept the leader’s approach while we suggest that active followers provide leader support through a more involved role that includes offering consultation and advice (Carsten et al., 2010). With clear acknowledgment that these differences exist between a more traditional view of leaders and followers versus taking a view of truly effective followership, we can begin to further consider the core question of this chapter — “How can leaders develop truly independent thinking, effective followers?”

8.1.

Followership Development

There has been a great deal of work on leadership development that helps scholars and practitioners understand the components of an effective leader and how to develop effective leaders. Many organizations have “leadership development programs” that programmatically focus on developing the identified leadership competencies that the company is trying to have in their talent pool as people move up the ranks of the organization. And yet, while these leadership development programs often do an excellent job of teaching and developing leadership skills, they are essentially leader-centric and are missing the other half of the equation — the followers. What if organizations had follower development programs, with organization-wide effective followership as their goal? Or, what if organizations, as part of any leadership development programs they offer, train leaders how to lead in a way that creates effective followers? What if organizations trained leaders to develop the skills in followers necessary for them to follow effectively? Next, we consider not the organizational level of


145

analysis for developing followers but rather something much more proximal to the followers — ways in which leaders can develop effective followers in their own work groups. 8.1.1.

Leaders, Followers, and the Development of Effective Followership

In order to create active followers who are committed to executing the organization’s strategy, leaders must create an environment in which followers are engaged through their commitment to their work group or department. Lok and Crawford’s (2001) work found that nurses’ perception of their ward’s subculture was more strongly related to organizational commitment than their perception of the overall organizational culture. This suggests that leaders play a key role in creating levels of organizational commitment — that, if leaders want engaged, active followers that will act on behalf of the organizational goals, leaders must create subcultures within the organization in which active followers can feel engaged and committed. In order to create these subcultures, which will subsequently foster commitment to the organization, leaders can build an overall esprit de corps, building social identities in followers that center around pride in-group membership as a follower. Next, we discuss how leaders can create and strengthen followers’ social identities as members of the “effective follower” group. 8.1.1.1. Building identities Identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; McCall & Simmons, 1978; Stryker, 1980) offers valuable insights for thinking about how leaders can develop effective followers. Work on identification suggests that followers strive to define themselves within the social environment by identifying with others, such as a group or organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Social identity theory suggests that individuals’ identification with a group will result in a self-concept that integrates the individual’s notion of themselves with that of group membership (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Leaders have an impactful opportunity to leverage this need for humans to belong in creating effective followership. For example, if a leader can create a group identity in his or her followers, that group identity then can be shaped to be one characterized by independent thinking and active behaviors. When individual members feel that are a part of a group of active, independent thinkers, they are going to then continue to engage in behaviors that reinforce that social identity created by membership in that group. Once followers view themselves as part of the group that includes the leader, they strive to achieve a positive view of themselves, which includes seeking positive outcomes for the group. Thus, theory on identity suggests that followers will exert exemplary effort when they identify with a group, so leaders need to take action to encourage identification with the group of which they are a part. Fortunately, identification scholarship provides guidance about how leaders can foster the conditions that promote followers’ identification with a group. First, followers want to feel that they are part of something as a result of the human need

146


for belongingness, so leaders should encourage shared goals or a common experience to promote a feeling of being a group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Groups that are perceived to be prestigious or distinctive from other groups are especially subject to being identified with strongly, which points to the importance of leaders highlighting how a group is different from other groups in positive ways (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Research on identity also suggests that once followers hold an identity that incorporates certain characteristics, followers will engage in behaviors that are consistent with their identity (Hogg & Terry, 2000; McCall & Simmons, 1978). This suggests that leaders who develop independent thinking into the identities of their followers will encourage effective followership behaviors. The question remains, though, how might leaders build such characteristics into the identities of their followers? Social identity theory suggests that once individuals identify with a group, a group prototype forms that incorporates the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of ideal group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Group members are motivated to exhibit group prototypical behaviors in order to reap the benefits of belonging to the group and gaining self-esteem from being a part of the group (Hogg, 2001). Further, individuals evaluate themselves and other group members based on how close to the group prototype members are. Leaders can play a role in developing group prototypical behaviors by making comparisons with members of other groups with contrasting behaviors. For example, a leader could point out another group or organization that includes members who clearly do not think for themselves and engage in an inactive form of followership. 8.1.1.2. Charismatic and transformational leadership and identity building Another answer to the question of how leader can build independent thinking and active followership in the identity of their followers is provided by literature on charismatic and transformational leadership. Building a collective social identity in followers involves the leader constructing a “we” mentality, whereby followers feel that they are part of a unique group that is linked to their leader. The leadership literature suggests that leaders can create this shared identity through the use of language, symbols, and imagery (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Howell & Shamir, 2005; Seyranian & Bligh, 2008). Charismatic leadership theory, through its focus on the followers’ attributions about and identification with the leader, would suggest that if leaders want to develop effective followers, they do it through role modeling behaviors of an independent, active, and courageous nature that followers can identify with and form self-concepts of themselves as similar to the leader. Research on transformational leaders suggests that they engage in inspirational motivation to create a shared understanding and calling toward actions that elevate the group to a higher calling (e.g., Wang & Howell, 2012). Transformational leadership also suggests that collectively, followers will adopt goals that reflect the group’s mission, for which they will forego their own individual goals (Bass & Bass, 2008). While the above may create a “group” identity with which individuals can form social identities, for effective followership, the nature of that identity must be uniquely comprised of active, independent thinking. Again we can turn to the


147

transformational leadership literature for insights as to just how leaders can create foundations for these kinds of followers. While transformational leadership sets the foundational elements, we argue that enhanced delivery and thinking about transformational leadership is necessary in order to create not just followers who exceed expectations, but rather truly effective followers. Below, we focus on one dimension of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, to demonstrate how it can be enhanced and delivered with new perspectives in order to create these outstanding followers. We discuss this one dimension in order to give adequate attention to the enhanced conceptualization of the dimension, the more robust operationalization of it, and to related factors necessary for the full impact of intellectual stimulation to create active and independent, critically thinking followers. In doing so, we are not arguing that the other three dimensions of transformational leadership are not also important in creating effective followers; rather, we have selected to thoroughly concentrate on just one dimension in order to demonstrate how re-visiting and enhancing an established leadership practice can help leaders create even more effective followers. 8.1.1.3. Intellectual stimulation and effective followership One of the four dimensions of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, currently offers a clear set of recommendations for behaviors that leaders can engage in as they strive to create followers who will perform beyond expectations. Intellectual stimulation refers to the actions that transformational leaders take to help followers question assumptions, think creatively, and think independently (Bass & Bass, 2008). However, for developing effective followers a` la Kelley’s framework, leaders will have to go beyond traditional intellectual stimulation and include coaching to help followers learn to disagree credibly. Specific leader behaviors that accomplish this include asking followers, “Why wouldn’t we do that?” or “Your job is to tell me why my approach is wrong,” or “What is another way that we can think about this problem?” or “Imagine this from a customer’s perspective (or any other perspective other than the leader’s).” Asking these types of questions stimulates followers to think differently in terms of problem identification, problem definition, stakeholder identification, solution possibilities, and solution evaluation. Not only will this approach ask followers to think differently across these areas, the ensuing discussion with the leader will provide the skill-building opportunity for verbalizing an opposing view in a credible way. These types of questions will help followers learn to not only craft arguments for disagreeing with the leader, but will provide followers with the opportunities to repeatedly practice disagreeing with the leader. The team-effectiveness literature has long hailed the necessity for a “Devil’s Advocate” in order to generate more effective solutions (De Dreu & West, 2001). The transformational leadership literature has not yet linked that element of creating followers with “effective disagreement” or “Devil’s Advocate” skills to the process of intellectually stimulating followers. To further exemplify this, consider a traditional approach to intellectual stimulation. It might include having followers research a competitor for new ideas, for example. We suggest pushing followers to then take that several steps farther and

148


use it to craft an argument on purpose that creates reasons, for example, that suggest not entering a market, launching a new product, or partnering with someone. Doing so will help followers develop the skill of, and the courage for, generating credible arguments for disagreeing with the leader. In addition to training followers to disagree, other creativity building activities such as remote association, cross-application of hobbies (Jaussi, Randel, & Dionne, 2007), and divergent thinking will also help leaders intellectually stimulate their followers. They could use such activities to increase their followers’ cognitive flexibility, thereby increasing their ability to think more independently. For example, when solving a problem, leaders could ask followers to consider characteristics of a hobby they enjoy. Once those characteristics are identified and the process of engaging in that hobby is deconstructed, the leader would then coach the follower to use aspects of engaging in that hobby to craft a new angle to the problem at hand. In additional to intellectually stimulating followers, research suggests that engaging with this technique interacts with one’s creative identity to increase creativity (Jaussi et al., 2007). Therefore, utilizing this approach in conjunction with the identity generating processes described earlier will likely yield positive results for effective followership development. 8.1.1.4. Psychological safety, failure, and effective followership One caveat for leaders engaging in intellectual stimulation as it relates to creating effective followers: while intellectual stimulation may give followers the skills to think independently, they are only to actively engage in their work using that independent thinking if they feel that it is safe for them to do so. They must feel that they will not suffer negative consequences for actively engaging in independent thoughts and actions. Therefore, leaders must be sure to actively create an environment tolerant of failure and one that is psychologically safe for risk taking (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009; Edmondston, 1999). The leader must create an environment that lets followers feel safe to question assumptions. Creating a psychologically safe, failure-tolerant environment to encourage risk taking requires leaders to design small “experiments” for followers that allow them to take risks. These small “experiments” for followers may include special projects, relationship management opportunities with customers or vendors, mentoring other employees, or other types of either short term or small in scope assignments where the stakes are not too high and the followers can experience a small win if things go well, or learn from failure if mistakes are made. These types of repeated growth opportunities will allow followers to “fail forward,” or allow them to fall down and pick themselves back up again, stronger and smarter. Designing these types of developmental experiences into the job and career trajectories of followers will help leaders create followers who are used to taking risks, and who will quickly learn that failure is something to be learned from, and necessary for growth. Followers will also learn that it is safe to reach out and try, and they will therefore not be afraid to continue on an “active” trajectory. All of the small experiments in the world will not create true psychological safety without the followers completely trusting their leader. Trust in one’s leader, or a


149

willingness to make oneself vulnerable, results from perceptions of leader integrity (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002) as well as from leader benevolence, which is indicated by showing individualized consideration to each follower (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). This suggests that in order to truly be effective followers to occur at the highest levels, in order to have that requisite trust in their leaders, followers must have leaders who are fair, consistent, and fulfill their promises (Colquitt et al., 2007).

8.1.1.5. Effective followers are positive Kelley’s work suggests that effective followers are positive and enthusiastic, ready to wholeheartedly engage with and support their leader. Kelley’s assertion is further supported by Barbara Fredrickson’s research that focuses on the impact of positive emotions in generating more independent, creative thoughts (Fredrickson, 2001, 2005). Frederickson’s research consistently demonstrates that when individuals experience positive affect, their cognitive scope “broadens” allowing for thinking more flexibly, seeking new information to bear on problems, and exploring new ideas. Individuals experiencing positive affect have been found to generate more diverse and creative solutions when problem-solving as a result of this broadened, flexible thinking approach (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005; Fredrickson, 2003; Isen, 1987). In addition, positive emotions have been shown to increase individuals’ task focus (Herrald & Tomaka, 2002; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). Through an approach orientation, or a motivation to go toward things that help them learn and grow, individuals experiencing positive emotions pursue goals purposefully and draw upon skills accumulated in the past (Elliot, 1999; Miller & Schnoll, 2000). Thus, followers with positive affect support their leader’s efforts both through more flexible, creative thinking as well as an effective focus on accomplishing goals. The question remains, however, about how followers are put into this positive state at work. One answer to that question is “leadership.” Leaders must practice gratitude, and engage in behaviors that stimulate positive affect. If leaders see it as their responsibility to help followers to be more positive, they must think about their own modeling and levels of positive emotions. Through a process of emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994), followers can and will “catch” a leader’s emotional state. Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) suggests that followers will also “learn” which emotions are expected at work through a leader’s role modeling. Modeling the expression of gratitude and letting followers know they are appreciated will help them feel more positive while at work. Leaders should never underestimate the power of a thank you, and even better yet, of a wholehearted expression of gratitude for followers. However, it is important for leaders to remember that according to expectancy theory, followers must value the way in which the appreciation is delivered (Lawler, 1969). If, for example, a follower values growth and autonomy, the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976) helps leaders understand that redesigning the follower’s job to include more opportunities for these things will send a strong signal of appreciation — likely much more so, than a “thank you.”

150


Regardless of the way in which follower appreciation is delivered, leaders must remember what Luthans and colleagues coined as positive psychological capital, or “PsyCap.” “PsyCap” refers to the positive psychological capacities in leaders and followers (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). Research suggests that authentic leaders, through modeling and contagion processes, are able to transmit their authenticity to followers and create high levels of hope, optimism, resilience, and confidence in their followers (Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008). This suggests that yet another avenue for leaders to develop these positive qualities for effective followership lies in their own self-development as more authentic leaders. Authentic leaders, according to Walumbwa and colleagues, are characterized by self-awareness, relational transparency, an ethical imperative, and the ability to process the views from both sides of an argument. Through leaders developing these qualities in themselves and utilizing them in their leadership, more effective followership should ensue through a process of social learning. 8.1.1.6. Setting high expectations Psychology and leadership research (e.g., Eden & Shani, 1982) strongly suggests that a Pygmalion effect exists between leaders and followers whereby followers will rise to exactly the levels of a leader’s expectations of them. Eden and Shani’s seminal study found, under experimental conditions in the field, that military trainees scored higher on objective tests, has more positive emotions, and demonstrated more effective leadership behaviors when their field instructors were trained to have and articulate high expectations for the trainees than when instructors had low expectations. When leaders have low expectations of followers, they perform at lower levels. When leaders have high expectations of followers, followers rise to those levels and perform at those higher levels. Managers’ implicit beliefs about followers, or their implicit follower theories (IFTs), drive these expectations (Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson, 2012). Therefore, in order to develop effective followership in followers, leaders must set high expectations. Without high expectations, followers will continue to perform only at the level of expectations set, and will not attain higher levels of performance or effectiveness. It is also critical for leaders and managers to closely examine their fundamental assumptions about followers in efforts to clearly articulate their resultant expectations.

8.2.

Future Research

Given all of the above, a number of exciting opportunities exist for the study of developing effective followership throughout organizations. Examining leaders, as a more proximal influence on followers, for the delivery of these development efforts, will provide a foundation for scholarly work in this area. For example, field experiments are needed to untangle whether traditional transformational leadership produces truly effective followers per Kelley’s dimensions or simply followers who


151

perform above expectations. Similarly, field experiments could examine whether the things described herein — for example, leaders creating a strong, shared social identity built around effective followership; leaders using intellectual stimulation with purposeful creation of independent thinking and action-inducing idea generation, high levels of expectations — have differential impact in developing the kinds of followers Kelley depicts in his seminal work. Taking a followership perspective allows for new light to be shed on ongoing opportunities. For example, research has examined why and how leaders lead but little has been done on why and how people follow. Even more specifically, we have little knowledge of why people may follow in the ways depicted in Kelley’s framework? Future research built upon Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory also holds promise for theory building in the area of followership development. LMX theory suggests that when subordinates are in the “in-group” of a leader’s circle of influence, they will receive greater attention and information from the leader and will therefore achieve higher performance than subordinates in the “out-group” (Scandura & Graen, 1985). Since it is often follower characteristics that give followers the privileged status of the “in-group,” imagine how the relationship building processes would differ if the leader took a follower development perspective before the in-group was really formed? Imagine if the leader had the skills and training to pre-empt the negative out-group effects of LMX, and could develop subordinates to display the followership qualities expected for in-group member status? Follower-centric theories such as the Romance of Leadership (c.f. Meindl, 1995; Meindl, Erhlich, & Dukerich, 1985) and Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) (c.f. Lord & Brown, 2004) also hold great promise for building theory on effective followership. As these theories suggest that followers will initiate and maintain the leadership attributions and thereby “give” leaders leadership based on those attributions and previously held mental models of “leadership,” they naturally lend a unique frame through which to consider the development of effective followership. For example, if followers are holding attributions about leaders as the only ones who should be thinking strategically, follower development for effective followership will require that new mental models be created together between leaders and followers that help re-craft and re-shape a “leader’s” purview versus that of a “follower.” Using these follower-centric lenses suggest that it’s not just a matter of leader modeling or leader-guided skill building that will develop followers, but rather it will be sense making efforts designed to collaboratively create new mental models for followers. These collaboratively created mental models will then allow new attributions for “Romance” to occur and new ILTs to form. Only then will followers be particularly receptive to the modeling and skill-building processes that leaders may deliver in the hopes of developing effective followers. Additionally, there remains a great deal of work to be done in the area of organizational systems for effective followership. One critical influence for the way in which individuals work and follow is the design of the organizational systems in the workplace (Galbraith, 1977). Future research might explore whether systems exist in organizations to select applicants that fall into effective followership quadrants,

152


develop necessary attributes for effective followers, and monitor and reward performance of effective followership. In addition to considering whether or not systems exist, future research can help explore how externally focused organizational systems to encourage effective followership. For example, how do systems for customer integration help encourage and develop effective followership? How do market sensing systems (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) help develop independent thinking, active followers? While this chapter has discussed actions that leaders can take to develop effective followers, there remains a wide range of unearthed ground at the organization system level to be explored with respect to the development of effective followership in organizations.

8.3.

Practitioner Implications

Bringing effective followership development to the forefront of research and practice agendas will benefit practicing managers and employees in a number of ways. First, creating training opportunities aimed at specifically building independent thinking and active followership for both leaders and followers will result in a new world of growth for followers. No longer will going to work mean “check your brain at the door and keep your opinions to yourself.” Rather, followers will be encouraged to experience changed expectations both within themselves and within their leaders. We focused earlier on the case of enhancing intellectual stimulation as an example of this new mindset that leaders can adopt. Briefly considering another dimension, individualized consideration, here, will help further demonstrate our point. Imagine a leader engaging in individualized consideration through sitting down to talk to a follower about their goals for their next promotion. Taking that traditional, transformational leadership approach is likely to be effective for creating a more productive and committed follower as it relates to job performance. However, that approach does not necessarily create a follower who is then active, and able to do that same thing to others. That conversation does not prompt the follower to go and practice individualized consideration with others, which is something a truly effective follower, a la Kelley’s model, would do. It is also something the leader needs the follower to demonstrate — even to the leader — in order to help the leader be the most effective he or she can be. It is the “teaching a man to fish” is more effective than just giving him a fish. Moreover, a managerial mindset committed to developing effective followers will also encourage the followers to “do” things to the manager as well — not just to other colleagues. Practitioners will benefit from this changed mindset. Employees will be more engaged in their work, have higher performance, and will likely have lower rates of turnover because of this enhanced, more active engagement and because of higher expectations from their leaders. With their minds and hearts active and independently contributing to their leaders and organization’s goals through enhancements to traditional transformational leadership behaviors, they will be more likely to


153

thrive at work. Leaders and organizations will also benefit. With effective followers on their team, they will have more brainpower, more eyes, more strategic thoughts, more ethical perspectives actively engaged with which to make decisions. It is like the bundle of sticks in the classic Aesop fable — bundled together, the sticks are strong and unbreakable, but separately, they are weak and can be broken. Alone, we are weak and easily broken, but together, we are strong. — Aesop

References Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367!403. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634!665. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20!39. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709!729. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543!562. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity. A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job propensity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909!927. Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 637!647. De Dreu, C. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191!1201. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611!628. Eden, D., & Shani, A. (1982). Pygmalion goes to boot camp: Expectancy, leadership, and trainee performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 194!199. Edmondston, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350!383. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169!189. Frederickson, B. L. (2005). The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, In The science of well-being (pp. 217!238). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

154


Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broadenand-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218!226. Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91, 330!335. Galbraith, J. (1977). Organizational design. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Publishing. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250!279. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. (1994). Emotional contagion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Herrald, M., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Patterns of emotion-specific appraisal, coping, and cardiovascular reactivity during an ongoing emotional episode. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 434!450. Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184!200. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121!140. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96!112. Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes and social behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203!253. Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy, and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2/3), 247!258. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, 142!148. Lawler, E. E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology, 22, 426!435. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2001). Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(8), 594 !613. Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. J. (2004). Leadership processes and follower self-identity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541!572. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803!855. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709!734. McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life (Rev ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social comparison approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 329!341. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78!102. Miller, S. M., & Schnoll, R. A. (2000). Coping with stress: Examples from the cancer context. In M. M. Lewis (Ed.), Handbook of Emotions. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Blumen-Lipman, J. (2008). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


155

Rodgers, M. S., Sauer, S. J., & Proell, C. A. (2013). The lion’s share: The impact of credit expectations and credit allocations on commitment to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 80!93. Scandura, T. A., & Graen, G. B. (1985). Moderating effects of initial leader-member exchange status on the effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 428!436. Seyranian, V., & Bligh, M. C. (2008). Presidential charismatic leadership: Exploring the rhetoric of social change. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(1), 54!76. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic Interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Tajfel, H. H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel & Austin W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp.7!24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187!209). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34(1), 89!126. Wang, X., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multi-level study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 775!790. Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 822!834. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Chapter 9

Why and How Should Subordinates Follow Their Managers? Laurent M. Lapierre

Abstract This chapter serves two related objectives. It first explains why subordinates’ display of followership is fundamental to their manager’s leadership, and thus to their organization’s success. Second, to the extent that subordinates wish to support their managers’ leadership, guidelines are provided that subordinates can use to determine which style of followership would best support their manager’s leadership decision-making. These practical guidelines involve the careful consideration of four situational factors that would indicate whether a more passive followership style (i.e., accepting the manager’s leadership decision-making without question) or a more proactive style (i.e., getting involved in the manager’s leadership decision-making) would be of greatest value. The situational factors explained include (1) the subordinate’s expertise, (2) the manager’s display of trust in the subordinate, (3) the urgency with which the leadership decision must be made, and (4) whether the leadership decision, once made, can realistically be changed. This chapter not only provides conceptual bases to researchers wishing to empirically examine the relative value of passive versus proactive followership styles, but also gives practitioners notions to share with anyone in a subordinate role wishing to support their manager’s leadership efforts. Keywords: Follower; followership; passive; proactive; leadership; decisionmaking; subordinate; manager; contingency

The propositions made in this chapter are fundamentally prescriptive in nature. I begin with an explanation of the reasons why I believe that subordinates who engage in followership with their managers are critical to organizational


158

Laurent M. Lapierre

effectiveness. A description is then provided of specific situational factors that subordinates should consider when deciding which style of followership to use with their manager. Specifically, I offer criteria that subordinates could use when determining whether proactive or passive followership would be of greatest value to the manager’s leadership decision-making, both before and after a leadership decision has been made. The arguments articulated in this chapter are largely grounded in the emerging research on followership as well as scholarship on leadership and decision-making within organizations.

9.1.

Why Should Subordinates Follow Their Managers?

9.1.1.

Leadership Requires Followership

To be most effective in their role, managers need to lead. I share the view that a manager who truly leads his or her subordinates is one who influences them such that they are more motivated than otherwise to contribute their personal resources (e.g., time, effort, skills, knowledge, abilities) in ways that support the group’s goals (J. P. Howell & Costley, 2006). However, a manager cannot be a leader in a social vacuum. To be a leader, the manager needs at least one subordinate who is willing to be led — to take on the symbiotic role of follower (DeRue & Ashforth, 2010). In fact, some define being a leader simply as whether or not one has followers (Drucker, 1993). A manager’s leadership is therefore contingent upon at least one subordinate’s display of followership. At its core, followership implies “deferring to the directives, decisions, or desires of another, thereby giving another higher status and legitimacy in determining the course of events” (Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007, p. 196). Hence, some degree of deference to the manager is implied by subordinates’ acts of followership. With those acts, subordinates show that they approve of their manager as their leader, that they are willing to be influenced by him/her in that capacity, and that they are prepared to support his/her leadership by providing at least some of their personal resources (Hernandez & Sitkin, 2011; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Hollander & Webb, 1955; J. M. Howell & Shamir, 2005). Defined as such, followership may not necessarily be displayed by any subordinate. There are several examples of discretionary subordinate behavior that would thwart a manager’s leadership efforts, such as refusing to carry out the manager’s decision or request, and engaging in deviant (counterproductive) behavior with the manager (Arnold, Dupre, Hershcovis, & Turner, 2011; Dupre & Barling, 2006; Tepper et al., 2006). Thus, while being a subordinate provides the opportunity to follow, being a follower is not implied by one’s subordinate status in the organizational hierarchy. Although subordinates’ followership can simply be viewed as evidence of a manager’s leadership (Drucker, 1993), it is also likely to contribute to a manager’s capacity and motivation to lead. For example, because followership involves recognizing and supporting the manager as a leader, it is likely to boost the

Why and How Should Subordinates Follow Their Managers?

159

manager’s self-confidence and sense of empowerment, thus enhancing the manager’s courage and motivation to make difficult decisions or to set bold and inspiring goals, such as those championed by charismatic leaders (J. M. Howell & Shamir, 2005; Lapierre, Bremner, & McMullan, 2012). In addition, by choosing to provide their manager with needed information or expertise, substantial research on decision-making implies that subordinates’ display of followership can potentially help their manager make the best possible leadership decisions (or at least help to avoid very costly ones) (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). It is also quite plausible that subordinates’ acts of followership beget managers’ provision of individualized consideration, a supportive type of behavior associated with transformational leaders. Indeed, the norm of reciprocity inherent to social exchange (Blau, 1964) implies that receiving followership would bolster a manager’s motivation to provide subordinates with special consideration that would help them overcome personal difficulties and/or would enable them to grow in their career (cf. Lapierre, Bonaccio, & Allen, 2009; Lapierre, Naidoo, & Bonaccio, 2012). Finally, without having subordinates highly committed to supporting and implementing his/her decisions, a manager would be hard pressed to see his/her decisions carried out in the best possible manner. Barring situations where managers lack the basic knowledge, interpersonal skills, and moral compass to be leaders, subordinates have a critical role to play in relation to their managers to ensure the success of their organization — they need to offer them followership. Not doing so may prevent the organization (or at least part of it) from having the leadership it needs to be successful. Therefore, the role of follower should not be associated with pejorative terms or imagery (e.g., “easily influenced,” “rude,” “uneducated,” “slow”; Sy, 2010). It should be considered a fundamental necessity for effective organizational functioning. That being said, the emerging scholarship on followership shows that subordinates can enact this role in very different ways. Some may choose to support their manager’s leadership by displaying a very passive style of followership, while others may do so by using a much more proactive style (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010). It is important to know when each style would be of greatest value to the manager’s leadership.

9.1.2.

How Passive and Proactive Followership Support Leadership Decision-Making

Passive followership, in its purest form, involves strict obedience and high deference to the leader. Passive followers refrain from questioning their leader’s ideas or decisions (even if they may disagree with them or doubt their soundness) and focus on carrying out leadership decisions to the best of their ability. Such followership, which emphasizes the manager’s superiority and power over the subordinate, is consistent with the traditional view of subordinates as being less gifted (e.g., less knowledgeable or capable) than their managers and displaying loyalty by showing unquestionable support for their managers’ ideas or decisions (Hecksher, 1994;

160

Laurent M. Lapierre

Ravlin & Thomas, 2005). Passive followership echoes what Kelley (1988) describes as dependent and uncritical followers (“sheep,” “yes people”). Alternatively, proactive followership involves significantly less deference to the leader and less concern with strictly obeying the leader’s decisions. Such followers aim to partner with the leader in leading the group by displaying independent thinking and contributing to decisions that affect the group’ success. As such, one could expect proactive followership to be manifested in the “partnership” type of relationship that sometimes develops between a manager and subordinate, as described by leader-member exchange scholars (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Proactive followers display at least some of the qualities of those whom Kelley (1988) labels as “effective” followers. One of the fundamental differences between proactive and passive followers lies in their respective degree of involvement in leadership decision-making. Leadership decisions are those that the manager is typically (formally) accountable for and that impact the group’s success. Being a leader invariably involves making decisions salient to the group’s success. Common examples include deciding upon the specific goals that the group should strive to accomplish and what method (or strategy) should be used to accomplish them, choosing how the work should be distributed among group members, deciding what new resources (e.g., human, financial, physical) should be provided to the group and/or which resources are no longer needed, determining how subordinate efforts should be recognized, and choosing which behavioral norms within the group should be developed and/or eliminated. Such decisions are often difficult to make, and can bolster or undermine a manager’s leadership. Subordinates’ followership can help to ensure that leadership decisions are as successful as possible. What is important to realize is that passive and proactive followership can support leadership decision-making in markedly different ways. Where passive followers let their leader make decisions for the group and focus their efforts on successfully carrying them out, proactive followers strive to contribute to (and thus influence) the leadership decision-making process. According to Carsten et al.’s (2010) observations, proactive followers would contribute to the decision-making process by voicing their ideas and concerns to their leader without waiting to be asked and with little concern about whether they will potentially contradict their leader’s opinion. They would also constructively challenge their leader’s assumptions or decisions if they threaten the group’s interests (e.g., mission, obligations, etc.). However, there are limits to the amount of disagreement and challenging that should be displayed, assuming subordinates truly want to be followers. A subordinate who regularly disagrees with and challenges the manager’s decisions, and who is generally unable to find common ground with him/her would be failing to show any deference at all to the manager’s opinion or desired direction. Such a subordinate would not be displaying followership of any kind (Lapierre, Bremner, et al., 2012), and the manager would likely feel unsupported. To the extent that one wishes to support leadership decision-making, it is important to know when it makes most sense to follow proactively and when it may be wiser to display passive followership. Arguments presented in the next section of this chapter aim to provide guidance in this respect.


161

While it may be argued that diversity in followership extends beyond the passive and proactive styles, the purpose of this chapter is not to provide an exhaustive explanation of each possible permutation of followership. My goal is to provide well-reasoned advice on salient situational information that subordinates could use when deciding which style of followership would be of most value to their manager’s leadership decision-making. I chose to focus on the passive and proactive styles for reasons of parsimony, and because they largely encapsulate follower types that have been suggested to exist (e.g., Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1988). An important assumption I make in proposing criteria for choosing which style of followership to display is that subordinates view their manager as having the basic knowledge, interpersonal skills, and ethical character to lead. If they firmly believe that their manager is unable or unwilling to make decisions that serve common interests (e.g., the manager clearly shows abysmal moral judgment), then non-followership (such as collectively resisting the manager’s requests or appealing to higher levels of authority within the organization) may be a better course of action than would followership. While it would take significant courage to thwart a manager’s leadership, such a decision may very well be in the best interests of the collective (Uhl-Bien & Carsten, 2007).

9.2.

How Should Subordinates Follow Their Managers?

The basic premise for the arguments I will present is that, depending on particular situational factors, proactive followership may be more or less effective than passive followership in supporting the manager’s leadership decision-making. This principle is, to some degree at least, analogous to situational leadership theories, particularly Vroom and colleagues’ contingency model, which essentially argue that more effective leadership styles are those that best fit the needs or particularities of the situation (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969, 1974, 1996, 2008; Vroom & Yago, 1988; Vroom & Yetton, 1973). However, while such leadership theories present criteria that managers should consider when determining the style of leadership to use with their subordinates, I present criteria that subordinates could consider when choosing which style of followership to use with their manager. I argue that a subordinate should consider at least four situational factors when deciding which style of followership to display. These include: (1) the subordinate’s degree of salient expertise, (2) the manager’s displayed trust in the subordinate, (3) the urgency of the leadership decision to be made, and (4) whether the leadership decision, once its implementation has begun, can realistically be changed. 9.2.1.

Consideration of the Subordinate’s Degree of Salient Expertise

A critical question to ask oneself (as a subordinate) when deciding whether or not to display proactive followership behaviors by voicing (unsolicited) suggestions and/or constructively challenging the manager’s ideas, assumptions, or decisions, is

162

Laurent M. Lapierre

whether or not one’s degree of expertise (knowledge or insights gained through formal education, work experience, or otherwise) is sufficiently strong to offer value-added information to the leadership decision-making process. The goal of a proactive follower is to present information that the manager may not have considered, which has the potential to improve leadership decisions. Decision-making research shows that managers who heed their subordinates’ advice can make substantially better decisions (Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006; Humphrey, Hollenbeck, Meyer, & Ilgen, 2002). However, managers sometimes follow subordinate advice that is unsound. It is quite conceivable that certain subordinates, because of a particularly strong need to be involved in leadership decision-making (cf. strong need for power; McClelland, 1985), will display proactive followership despite having little or no expertise salient to a particular leadership decision. If such subordinates voice their opinions in a particularly confident manner, they may succeed in influencing their manager’s decision. Indeed, decision-making research shows that managers are prone to following the advice of subordinates whom they perceive as being more self-confident, despite the fact that perceived self-confidence is a poor proxy for the quality of the advice given (for a review, see Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). Thus, the resulting leadership decision may be of poorer quality than had the subordinate refrained from (confidently) voicing weakly grounded ideas. Subordinates should carefully consider the potential added value of an idea or opinion that they wish to voice as proactive followers. It may make more sense to refrain from engaging in such proactive followership (and thus being more passive) if one has reason to seriously doubt the expertise he or she could contribute to the decision-making process. Doing so could prevent hindering the quality of the leadership decision. To more effectively decide when and when not to be a more proactive follower, I suggest that subordinates practice being devil’s advocates with themselves. Asking themselves questions such as “Is the information I want to share really that salient to my manager’s decision?” “Is the opinion I want to share based on solid evidence or facts?” and “How could my opinion alter the final decision, and will this change be in our collective interest?” These questions could help subordinates determine whether they have the degree of salient expertise needed to help improve the leadership decisionmaking process. I recognize that what I propose is easier said than done. Some subordinates may lack the self-confidence or self-awareness to recognize the value their knowledge or opinion may bring to the leadership decision-making process. They may thus refrain from engaging in proactive followership despite the value that such action could offer. Conversely, some subordinates may fail to recognize how little they actually know and still share their opinions, perhaps even with great confidence, as would be the case of those exemplifying the Dunning!Kruger Effect (a cognitive bias where unskilled individuals display illusory superiority; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Despite the potential difficulty in doing so, I still urge subordinates to at least try to be mindful of their expertise, and to temper their proactive followership on the basis of how much salient expertise they can offer their manager as he or she deliberates upon which decision to make. At the very least, subordinates with a great will to contribute to leadership decision-making (i.e., who have a strong desire to be


163

proactive followers) should explain the grounds upon which they are formulating opinions or suggestions, thus giving the manager the opportunity to appraise the potential quality of the ideas expressed. Finally, it should be noted that choosing to be a more passive follower because of insufficient expertise does not imply that the leadership decision will be poor. Indeed, choosing to be more passive may give other subordinates with more salient expertise an opportunity to display proactive followership and thus improve the quality of the leadership decision to be made. Thanks to the proactive followership of other subordinates, one may even acquire new expertise and thus be in a better position to offer proactive followership when a similar leadership decision has to be made in the future. In sum, I propose that a basic question subordinates should ask themselves when deciding whether to engage in more proactive or more passive followership is whether they have valuable expertise to contribute to leadership decision-making. That being said, even if subordinates judge that they have valuable expertise to offer and that proactive followership could add value to leadership decision-making, other factors may still imply that more passive followership would be of relatively greater value to the leadership decision-making process. I explain these factors next.

9.2.2.

Consideration of the Manager’s Trust in the Subordinate

Trust has been recognized as a critical component of high quality leader-follower relationships (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). Interestingly, most of the research attention given to trust in such relationships has focused on subordinates’ trust in their managers (for a review, see Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). It is rather puzzling that such little focus has been given to a manager’s trust in subordinates. Perhaps this state of affairs is consistent with the overwhelmingly dominant view of leadership occurring as a result of leaders influencing and followers being influenced. Being influenced often implies some degree of trust in the influencing party. Had more attention been given to the influence that followers can have on their leaders, perhaps greater attention would have been given to the degree of trust superiors have in their subordinates. Scholarship on the leader-member exchange (LMX) and relational models of leadership has revealed how important it is for a manager to trust a subordinate (Graen, 2003; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien, Graen, & Scandura, 2000). Trusting a subordinate implies that the manager believes that the subordinate will act in the manager’s best interests (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Decisionmaking research shows that decision-makers are less likely to use the advice of people they have little trust in (Sniezek & Van Swol, 2001). Thus, proactive followers’ attempts to provide advice may fall on deaf ears if their manager does not trust them. Moreover, without trust, it may be difficult for a manager to interpret proactive followership as the subordinate’s efforts to support his or her leadership. For a manager who has little trust in a subordinate, attempts by that subordinate to get involved in the manager’s leadership decision-making efforts may be interpreted as threatening, as attempts to usurp the manager’s authority. There is empirical

164

Laurent M. Lapierre

evidence that constructively challenging one’s manager is less likely to be well received when the manager perceives the quality of his/her relationship with the subordinate as being poor (i.e., where little trust exists) (Tepper et al., 2006). In sum, the decision to engage in proactive followership should be based on evidence of whether or not the manager trusts the subordinate. With little evidence of the manager’s trust (such as when the subordinate has just joined the group), it may be wiser to engage in more passive followership. Over time, as the subordinate’s display of passive followership bolsters his or her trustworthiness (by demonstrating salient abilities, a strong desire to aid the manager, as well as strong integrity; Mayer et al., 1995), the manager may show more trusting behaviors. Such behaviors could include delegating more important projects or responsibilities to the subordinate, asking for his or her opinion or advice, granting more decision-making authority, and less monitoring or surveillance (Bauer & Green, 1996; Brower et al., 2000; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). A manager may even explicitly encourage the subordinate to disagree with the manager when other ideas or decisions could be better (see Chapter 8 in this book). The more the subordinate sees evidence of having earned the manager’s trust, the more likely proactive followership will be well received and used by the manager when making leadership decisions. Otherwise, the manager’s leadership decision-making may best be served by passive followership, where the subordinate’s focus would be on carrying out the decision in the best possible manner.

9.2.3.

Consideration of the Urgency of the Leadership Decision to Be Made

Even when the subordinate has valuable expertise to share and has earned the manager’s trust, there may be insufficient time for the manager to carefully consider the subordinate’s input when making a leadership decision. The display of proactive followership, such as challenging the manager’s assumptions or decision-making logic, lengthens the decision-making process and the time within which a decision can be implemented. Decision-making delays resulting from proactive followership may actually be costlier than passively accepting the manager’s decision. In some circumstances, delaying a leadership decision, such as a military commander’s decision about whether or not to engage an enemy, or an airline captain’s decision about how to correct mid-air engine failure, can be catastrophic. Knowing when there is or is not sufficient time to be a proactive follower has merit even in situations that are not life threatening. Because of competing priorities and/or high workload, managers often have limited time to make leadership decisions. While delayed leadership decisions typically do not lead to tragic outcomes, pressure to deliver results (e.g., to clients, whether internal or external) in a timely manner can easily make delays in leadership decisions particularly stressful for managers (Svenson & Maule, 1993). It is therefore important for subordinates to carefully consider the time that their manager has at his or her disposal to make a particular leadership decision. Displaying proactive followership when the manager is under severe time pressure should only be done when the opinion voiced or


165

challenge made will clearly and significantly improve the decision’s quality. Otherwise, proactive followership is more likely to be met with contempt than with appreciation. Time is a precious resource, making it important for the follower to carefully gauge the potential gain of lengthening the time taken to make a leadership decision (cf. Field, 1979). If there were little to be gained by engaging in proactive followership, then passive followership would be a more suitable manner of supporting the manager’s leadership decision. In other words, to be effective followers, it is important for subordinates to know when to “shut up” such that a balance is struck between leadership decision quality and timeliness.

9.2.4.

Consideration of Whether the Leadership Decision Can Realistically Be Changed

Compared to the three preceding factors, this fourth one is unique in that it speaks to situations where a leadership decision has already been made and its implementation has begun. In such a circumstance, a subordinate may realize, based on preliminary evidence, that the decision made was a mistake and that a different course of action should be taken. Voicing such an observation, particularly when accompanied by a reasonable alternative to the original decision, could help avoid significant costs to the group. However, before sharing this type of information in an attempt to be a proactive follower, it is important for the subordinate to determine whether the potential benefits of changing the decision once its implementation has begun would truly outweigh the costs of doing so. Challenging the validity of the initial decision when it would be near impossible to change it because of severe costs that would be incurred (financial, time, political, reputational, etc.) would do little to actually support the manager’s leadership. Such action may do no more than cause significant stress for the manager, and weaken his/her self-confidence as a leader. The manager’s trust in the subordinate’s judgment could also be severely compromised (“Why didn’t you tell me this earlier?!?!?!”), thus hindering that subordinate’s future success in supporting the manager’s leadership in a proactive way. Considering the costs and benefits of changing a leadership decision after its implementation has begun could inform a subordinate of which style of followership to display. If the costs clearly outweigh the benefits of changing the original leadership decision, then passive followership would probably be much more supportive of the manager’s decision than proactive followership would. However, when there is good reason to believe that more would be gained than lost by changing the course of action that was originally decided upon, proactive followership may be the best way of supporting the manager’s leadership decision-making. When proactive followership seems to be the wisest choice, the subordinate should never ignore how delicate such a situation would be. Even if the subordinate may be convinced of the net gain of being a proactive follower in such a circumstance, the manager (and others) may still perceive a poor initial decision and/or desire to change the initial decision as evidence of poor leadership. Thus, it would be wise for the proactive follower to help the manager determine how to articulate the change in direction such that the manager’s

166

Laurent M. Lapierre

leadership potential is not compromised. This may help prevent an escalation of the manager’s commitment to the original (although failing) course of action (Staw, 1976).

9.3.

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to explain why a subordinate should consider different situational factors when deciding whether to use one type of followership or the other in support of the manager’s leadership decision-making. The factors presented could help a subordinate determine when it would be of significant added value to engage in proactive instead of passive followership. In short, a proactive style would likely be of greater benefit to a manager’s leadership decision-making when (1) the subordinate has expertise to share that is salient to a leadership decision, (2) there is evidence that the manager already trusts the subordinate and would therefore appreciate his or her efforts to improve leadership decisions, (3) there is sufficient time to contribute to the decision-making process, and (4) it is not too costly to try to change a decision that has already been implemented. If one or more of these circumstances do not exist, a subordinate’s passive followership may be of greater value to the manager’s leadership. While some research shows that subordinates can adapt their style of followership to the needs or constraints of a particular situation (Carsten et al., 2010), some subordinates may have considerable difficulty doing so. People are likely to vary in their preferences to engage in proactive versus passive followership. It is quite conceivable that certain personal traits (e.g., proactive personality, generalized selfefficacy, power distance; Bateman & Crant, 1993; Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2001; Earley & Erez, 1997) would make some subordinates naturally prefer one type of followership to the other. Feeling forced to display a style of followership that is counter to one’s preference could be difficult, particularly for people who prefer proactive followership and who realize that they must be more passive (Carsten et al., 2010). I encourage those who find it too difficult to adapt or adjust their style of followership to consider whether or not they truly want to support their manager’s leadership. Chronic failure to display appropriate followership may not only threaten the manager’s leadership, but may severely limit one’s career growth opportunities. Indeed, a manager would have relatively little reason or desire to provide discretionary career-enhancing opportunities to a subordinate who does not clearly support his or her leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2000). As noted several times in this book, very little attention has been given to the critical contributions that followers make to leadership. As subordinates, individuals have the opportunity to support their managers’ leadership by following them. Management experts have often argued that managers must consider various situational factors when deciding how best to lead. Hopefully, the ideas expressed in this chapter will help subordinates decide how best to follow.


167

References Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K. E., Hershcovis, M., & Turner, N. (2011). Interpersonal targets and types of workplace aggression as a function of perpetrator sex. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23, 163!170. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, M. J. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103!118. Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1996). Development of leader-member exchange: A longitudinal test. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1538!1567. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley. Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 101, 127!151. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227!250. Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543!562. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62!83. DeRue, D. S., & Ashforth, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627!647. Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611!628. Drucker, P. F. (1993). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY HarperBusiness. Dupre, K. E., & Barling, J. (2006). Predicting and preventing supervisory workplace aggression. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 13!26. Earley, C. P., & Erez, M. (1997). New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology. San Francisco, CA Jossey-Bass. Field, R. H. G. (1979). A critique of the vroom-yetton contingency model of leadership behavior. The Academy of Management Review, 4(2), 249!257. doi:10.2307/257778 Graen, G. B. (2003). Role making onto the starting work team using LMX leadership: Diversity as an asset. In G. B. Graen (Ed.), Dealing with diversity (pp. 1!28). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219!247. Hecksher, C. (1994). Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In C. Heckscher & A. Donnellon (Eds.), The post-bureaucratic organization: New perspectives on organizational change. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hernandez, M., & Sitkin, S. B. (2011). Who is leading the leader? Follower influence on leader ethicality. In D. DeCremer & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Behavioral business ethics: Ideas on an emerging field. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 26!34. May.

168

Laurent M. Lapierre

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1974). So you want to know your leadership style? Training and Development Journal, 22!37. February. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1996). Revisiting the life-cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 42!47. January. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (2008). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387!397. Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50(2), 163!167. Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96!112. Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L. (2006). Understanding behaviors for effective leadership (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2002). Hierarchical team decision making. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 175!213. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 141!148. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121!1134. Lapierre, L. M., Bonaccio, S., & Allen, T. D. (2009). The separate, relative, and joint effects of employee job performance domains on supervisors’ willingness to mentor. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 135!144. Lapierre, L. M., Bremner, N. L., & McMullan, A. D. (2012). Strength in numbers: How employees’ acts of followership can influence their manager’s charismatic leadership behavior. Zeitschrift fu¨r Psychologie, 220(4), 251!261. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000119 Lapierre, L. M., Naidoo, L., & Bonaccio, S. (2012). Leaders’ relational self-concept and followers’ task performance: Implications for mentoring provided to followers. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 766!774. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 709!734. McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills and values determine what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812!825. Ravlin, E. C., & Thomas, D. C. (2005). Status and stratification in organizational life. Journal of Management, 31(6), 966!987. Sniezek, J. A., & Van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge!advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 288!307. Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27!44. Svenson, O., & Maule, A. J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making. New York, NY: Springer. Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73!84. Tepper, B. J., Uhl-Bien, M., Kohut, G. F., Rogelberg, S. G., Lockhart, D. E., & Ensley, M. D. (2006). Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance. Journal of Management, 32(2), 185!209.


169

Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not. Organizational Dynamics, 36(2), 187!201. Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader-member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. In G. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 18), Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Press. Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. 187!209). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Vroom, V. H., & Yago, A. G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23, 513!530.

About the Editors

Laurent M. Lapierre is a Professor of organizational behavior and human resources management and a Telfer Research Fellow at the University of Ottawa’s Telfer School of Management, located in Ottawa, Canada. His research focuses on leader!follower relational dynamics and on work!family issues. Examples of outlets in which his work has been published include The Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, The Leadership Quarterly, The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, The Journal of Vocational Behavior, and The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. He currently serves on the editorial boards of The Journal of Vocational Behavior, The Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, and The Journal of Business and Psychology. In addition to his research activities, Dr. Lapierre is a highly committed instructor. At the Telfer School, he teaches courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels. He has also taught as an invited instructor in MBA programs offered in Romania, France, and China. The University of Ottawa has awarded him an Excellence in Education Prize for demonstrating outstanding teaching while maintaining a solid research program. Melissa K. Carsten is an Associate Professor of Management at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Dr. Carsten’s research interests are in the areas of organizational leadership and followership. Specifically, she studies the role that followers play in the leadership process and how followers can help leaders identify and solve problems, make decisions, and champion change efforts in the organization. Dr. Carsten has published articles in peer-reviewed journals such as The Leadership Quarterly, Organizational Dynamics, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership, Employee Relations, Organization Management Journal, and The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies. She has also contributed several book chapters to edited books on leadership and followership. Her research has been recognized by the Eastern Academy of Management and the Southern Management Association where she has received three Best Paper Awards for the OB Division (2009 and 2013), and one Overall Best Conference Paper Award (2013). She has also been recognized by Science Direct for having one of the top 10 most downloaded articles in 2011. Dr. Carsten brings over 10 years of consulting experience in the areas of leadership development, HR selection and performance management systems, and compensation and benefits. She has consulted for both public and private organizations in the transportation, energy, health care, and high-tech industries.

About the Authors

Susan D. Baker is an Associate Professor of Management at Morgan State University where she teaches courses in Business Leadership, Ethics, and Organizational Behavior to undergraduate and graduate students. She came to academe after a career in industry, receiving her Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior and Development from the George Washington University in 2006. Her supporting field in Leadership and Ethics focused her research interests in the fields of leadership, followership, and behavioral ethics. Dr. Baker served as an Assistant Dean for Administration and Finance at the University of Baltimore before joining Morgan. Prior to her academic career, she was an employee in start-up to medium-sized for-profit businesses. In her middle management and senior management positions in the newspaper industry, she observed the skills of her employees and the instances in which she and employees switched leader!follower roles. This stimulated her interest in effective followers and what enables leaders and followers to exchange roles. Her current research examines these areas. Dr. Baker’s research has appeared in the Journal of Managerial Issues, Journal of Management Education, and Organization Management Journal. Her presentation sponsors about followership include the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Eastern Academy of Management, George Washington University, and the United States Customs and Border Protection. She and her co-authors have been recognized for their followership scholarship (Outstanding Empirical Paper Award, Eastern Academy of Management, 2011 and Best Experiential Exercise Award, Experiential Learning Association, 2013). She is a member of the Academy of Management, Eastern Academy of Management, and Society for Business Ethics. Michelle C. Bligh is an Associate Professor in the School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences (SBOS) and the Drucker!Ito School of Management at Claremont Graduate University, CA. She has also served as the Associate Dean of SBOS. Her research interests include charismatic leadership, interpersonal trust, gender issues in leadership, and political and executive leadership. Her work has been published in Journal of Applied Psychology, Leadership, Employee Relations, The Leadership Quarterly, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Group and Organization Management, Journal of Managerial Psychology, and the Journal of Business Ethics, and she serves on the editorial review boards of The Leadership Quarterly and Leadership. She was awarded the 2007 Sage Best Paper Award in

174

About the Authors

Group and Organization Management and the 2003 Sage Outstanding Paper Award for Research Methods. Her scholarly work was recognized by The Leadership Quarterly as one of the top 50 most cited authors of the decade, 2000!2010. Dr. Bligh has also served as a visiting professor for the Singapore Institute of Management’s Executive MBA program for the last 10 years. She has also helped a variety of public and private sector organizations assess and improve their effectiveness in the areas of leadership development, organizational culture, and change management. Deanna de Zilwa is a Faculty Member at the School of Management and Governance, Murdoch University, Western Australia. She holds a Ph.D. awarded by the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her previous research focused on questions relating to the leadership and management of universities. This work explored organizational adaptation and resistance to environmental changes, entrepreneurialism, and organizational culture and values. More recently the scope of her research has expanded. Her current research explores the dynamics of the relationship between leaders and followers. In particular how pro-active partnerships between leaders and followers can be created and sustained to build followers’ strengths and capacities, enhance leadership effectiveness, and improve organizational performance. Peter Harms received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the assessment and development of personality, leadership, and psychological well-being. Publications by Dr. Harms have appeared in such outlets as Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Academy of Management Perspectives, Leadership Quarterly, Human Resource Management Review, Psychology and Health, and the Journal of Organizational Behavior as well as popular media outlets such as CNN, Scientific American, and the BBC. Dr. Harms has been invited to speak to audiences around the world and was selected by the St. Gallen symposium as one of the “100 Knowledge Leaders of Tomorrow” in 2011. Andrew T. Hinrichs is an Assistant Professor of Management at California State University, Stanislaus. He received his Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. He has been a visiting professor at the University of Western Australia and University of New Mexico. Professor Hinrichs teaches in the areas of organizational behavior and human resources. Research interests include leadership motivation, authority relationships, and followership. Kim T. Hinrichs is an Associate Professor of Management at California State University, Chico. He earned his Ph.D. in Business Administration from New Mexico State University. He currently teaches leadership and management principles. His research interests include leadership, followership, and the management profession. Kimberly S. Jaussi is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Leadership in the School of Management at Binghamton University and a Fellow of the Center for Leadership Studies. She received her doctorate from the Marshall

About the Authors

175

School of Business at the University of Southern California. Her research interests include creative leadership and followership, transformational and strategic leadership, innovation, organizational commitment, and identity issues in diverse groups. Christopher J. Mathis is an Associate Professor of Business Administration in the Earl G. Graves School of Business and Management at Morgan State University. He received his Ph.D. in Management from Jackson State University. Dr. Mathis’ research interests focus on balancing work responsibilities and life obligations — particularly gender, gender role identity, and racioethnic differences. In addition, he conducts research in the area of leadership/followership — specifically, examining relationships between leaders and followers. His research has appeared in the Journal of Managerial Issues; Journal of International Business Disciplines; Journal of Organizational Culture, Communication, and Conflict, among others. Selected research conferences include the Academy of Management, Southern Management Association, and Eastern Academy of Management. He teaches courses in strategy to masters and undergraduate students, and leadership to undergraduate students. Prior to obtaining his doctorate degree, Dr. Mathis worked as an accountant analyst at both International Business Machines (IBM) in Durham, NC, and MCI WorldCom in Clinton, MS. He has also worked as a procurement and financial analyst at Promina Health System in Stone Mountain, GA. Additionally, Professor Mathis has served as a strategic planning and business consultant for several private and public organizations in the Metropolitan DC area, Dover, NJ, Atlanta, GA, and El Paso, TX. Dr. Mathis is a member of the Academy of Management, Southern Management Association, and Eastern Academy of Management. Tara McCoy is a doctoral student in psychology at the University of California, Riverside. She conducts research on leadership and followership, specifically on leader and follower roles with an interest in how these roles relate to other work outcomes. In 2012, Tara received her Bachelor of Arts degree in Psychology from Metropolitan State University in Saint Paul, MN. She began graduate school shortly after working with Dr. Thomas Sy. Tara has presented at several conferences for organizations including Society for Social and Personality, Association for Psychological Science, Midwestern Psychological Association, and Minnesota Psychological Association. Outside of her studies, Tara volunteers as an education advocate for foster youth. Micha Popper is a Professor and the head of Organizational Psychology Program at the University of Haifa, Israel. Previously, he was the head of the IDF’s (Israel Defense Forces) School for Leadership Development. He was the founder and director of the Center for Outstanding Leadership in Zikhron Yaakov Israel; a scholar of the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) and has been a visiting professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver Canada, and the University of Western Ontario, London. His research and consulting address leadership and organizational development, dynamics of leader!follower relationships, as well as organizational learning. He has authored five books on leadership, co-authored a book on

176

About the Authors

organizational learning, and written numerous articles that have been published in leading academic and applied journals. Amy E. Randel is an Associate Professor of Management at San Diego State University. She received her B.A. in psychology from Brown University and her Ph.D. in management from the University of California, Irvine. Her research interests include diverse work groups, identity in organizations, creativity/innovation, workplace social inclusion, and cross-cultural management. She has published articles in journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Group & Organization Management, and Journal of Applied Social Psychology. She also serves on the editorial board of Journal of Organizational Behavior and has taught a variety of courses, including Organizational Behavior, Creativity and Innovation, Organizational Design and Change, Change Management, and Leadership and Behavior in Organizations. Prior to joining the faculty at SDSU, Amy Randel was on the faculty at Wake Forest University and worked for several organizations in the areas of health care consulting and public relations. She has provided consulting and/or executive education in the areas of high-performance teams, leadership, and creativity/innovation. She has won numerous awards, including the Academy of Management’s Gender and Diversity in Organizations (GDO) Division Best Paper Based on a Dissertation Award (2000), the Organizational Behavior Division Outstanding Reviewer Award (2006 and 2007), Excellent Reviewer from Journal of Organizational Behavior (2011 and 2012), research productivity awards at Wake Forest University (2003 and 2005), and an award for innovation in teaching at Wake Forest (2002). Rhonda K. Rodgers is a Ph.D. student in Organizational Behavior at the School of Behavioral and Organizational Sciences (SBOS) at Claremont Graduate University, CA. Her research interests include conscious capitalism, mindful leadership, interculturalism, and work!life balance. Her business experience spans industries ranging from aviation and international logistics to music marketing and warehouse distribution. Her management and consulting work focuses on integrating organizational performance and positive psychology. William E. Rosenbach is Evans Professor of Eisenhower Leadership Studies and Professor of Management Emeritus at Gettysburg College. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Colorado-Boulder in 1977 in Business Administration (Organizational Behavior). Dr. Rosenbach served as the founding Chairperson of the Department of Management, Gettysburg College from 1984 to 1991 and 2000 to 2001. He was Professor and Head, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, U.S. Air Force Academy from 1982 to 1984 and member of the faculty (1972!1984). Dr. Rosenbach’s research focuses on leader and follower behaviors, the dual role of leaders and followers, effectiveness of leadership development programs, and the relationship of transformational leadership to organizational performance. He is a founding partner of The Gettysburg Leadership Experience, a unique executive leadership development program in Gettysburg, PA.

About the Authors

177

Dr. Rosenbach serves as a consultant to business, government, and not-for-profit organizations on short-term managerial concerns as well as long-term leadership development. Clients include organizations in North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Dr. Rosenbach is a co-author of Contemporary Issues in Leadership (7th Ed.) and Military Leadership (6th Ed.). He has published more than 75 articles in scientific and professional journals and books. His presentation sponsors include: International Congress of Psychology (Australia); Eastern Academy of Management — International (France, Greece, Ireland, and the Czech Republic); American Psychological Association; Academy of Management; and others. Media interviews and commentaries include: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Christian Science Monitor, New Zealand Management, The Australian Age, and numerous radio and television programs. Susan A. Stites-Doe has taught at the College at Brockport, State University of New York, for 25 years. Dr. Stites-Doe has a Ph.D. in organizational behavior from the University of Buffalo, an MBA in Marketing from Pace University, and a BS in Marketing from SUNY Plattsburgh and has earned the official faculty rank of full professor. She is the first woman to earn the rank of full professor in the Business discipline on the Brockport campus since the founding of the department of business in 1971. Dr. Stites-Doe was recognized with a Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2001. In 1999, she served as Faculty in Residence at Eastman Kodak and Company, where she worked with the Director of Diversity Management to conduct a benchmarking and best practice study on strategic diversity initiatives. Her journal publications feature topics such as leadership and management compensation. A current research interest involves students’ satisfaction with the use of electronic textbooks. Dr. Stites-Doe serves as the Associate Dean of the School of Business Administration and Economics. She also serves on the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) Board of Directors, and the GRE Business Advisory Council, and has served on numerous nonprofit boards of directors throughout her career. Dr. Stites-Doe’s favorite personal pastime is traveling to diverse corners of the world, and she regards her best trip as the next one. Dr. Stites-Doe is married and has two adult daughters. Thomas Sy is an award-winning scholar, teacher, and consultant. He is on the faculty of the Department of Psychology at the University of California where he teaches and conducts research on leadership and teams, with particular focus on leadership and followership schemas, emotions, and diversity. His research has been published in a variety of outlets, including the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Vocational Behavior, as well appearing in popular media such as National Public Radio, London Times, Washington Post, and among others.

178

About the Authors

In addition to his research and teaching, Dr. Sy provides consulting, training, and coaching services to industry. He has served a variety of client organizations, including General Motors, Google, Los Angeles County, Northrop Grumman, Salvation Army, EDS, Ford, Southern California Edison, Waste Management, Johnson & Johnson, Boeing, IBM, General Electric, U.S. Army Research Institute, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the United States Marine Corp Special Operations Command. Dr. Sy completed his Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from the University of Michigan. He was formerly an advisor with a top-tier global management consultancy, specializing in corporate strategy and operations. Dr. Sy has also served in the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Beret). He lives in Huntington Beach, CA and enjoys Brazilian Jujitsu and abstract metal sculptures. Mary Uhl-Bien is a Professor and Howard Hawks Chair in Business Ethics and Leadership at the University of Nebraska. Her current research interests include complexity leadership, relational leadership, and followership. She is the senior editor of the Leadership Horizons series for Information Age Publishers, and has served on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, The Leadership Quarterly, Leadership, and International Journal of Complexity in Leadership and Management. Her recent books include The Sage Handbook of Leadership (Sage, 2011), Complexity Leadership (Information Age, 2008), Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl (Information Age, 2007), and Relational Leadership: A Dialogue Among Perspectives (Information Age, 2012).