Essay-Kelley model of followership three pages
270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research2
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
Paola Gatti, Claudio G. Cortese, Manuela Tartari, Chiara Ghislieri
Department of Psychology, University of Torino
ᴥ ABSTRACT. Il contributo presenta una ricerca sul tema della followership nelle organizzazioni, proponendosi di individuare alcuni possibili antecedenti del coinvolgimento attivo dei follower nella relazione con il leader. La ricerca, che ha coinvolto 390 soggetti provenienti da diversi contesti lavorativi, mette in evidenza il ruolo di alcune dimensioni personali (strategie di coping e apertura all’esperienza) e organizzative (comportamenti di cittadinanza organizzativa) nelle dinamiche di followership, e consente di formulare importanti indicazioni per le politiche di gestione delle risorse umane e, nello specifico, per la formazione aziendale.
ᴥ SUMMARY. Introduction: An increasing number of scholars argue that followers are a precondition for “successful” organizations. Nevertheless, followership has received scant attention in the literature. Starting from a theoretical analysis of the issue, this contribution aims to answer some questions regarding possible antecedents of Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE), a specific followership behavior described by Kelley (1988, 1992), described in previous works, which implies the propensity to take initiative, participate actively and be self-starters. Methods. A questionnaire was administered to 390 respondents from heterogeneous work settings. The questionnaire includes a personal data section and eight measures: F.AE; three personal/dispositional variables (extraversion, intellect, and avoiding coping), three individual-organization interaction variables (organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals – OCBI – and the organization – OCBO –, leader-member exchange), and a Lie scale as control variable. Data was analyzed with PASW 18. After analyzing reliability and descriptives, the relationship between the variables was explored using correlations and hierarchical multiple regression. Results. F.AE is related to six variables (25% explained variance). Three were positively related: in decreasing order, OCBO, intellect, OCBI, and Lie scale. Conversely, avoiding coping and gender were negatively related. Gender becomes significant only in the second step of the regression when dispositional variables are included. Conclusions. This study adds to the understanding of followers’ Active Engagement, for example by measuring some organizational dimensions as its antecedents, and has practical implications for training and human resource management policies. Further studies should clarify the dynamics that influence followers’ behavior and the dynamics of the mutual relationship between the leader’s and followers’ behavior, shedding light on the possible consequences for the organization, in terms of quality of work life and productivity.
Keywords: Followership, Active Engagement, Leadership
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 2 31/07/14 14:33
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
3
INTRODUCTION
The gap of attention concerning followership has been said to be one of the four “inalienable truths of leadership” (Dixon, 2008, p. 159), or “one of the most interesting omissions in theory and research on leadership” (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009, p. 434). Contrasting with this lack of attention, and one of the primary reasons for further investigations, is the pervasiveness of followership in the workplace: “we are all followers in some way” (Steger, Manners Jr & Zimmerer, 1982, p. 22) and “even those with the highest levels of leadership responsibilities, answer to someone” (Tanoff & Barlow, 2002, p. 157). Not only does every organization have more followers than leaders (Collinson, 2006), but many people (especially those in middle management) find themselves alternating between the two roles in the course of their work (Kelley, 1988, 1992).
Current changes in the world of organizations call for leaders who are able not only to face uncertainties (Montgomery, 2008), and to influence their team’s change readiness (Caldwell, Chatman, O’Reilly, Ormiston & Lapiz, 2008), but also to develop followers who can provide solid and positive support in these difficult times.
As Collinson (2006) emphasizes, an increasing number of scholars argue that followers are a precondition for successful organizations, a stance confirmed by Agho’s findings (2009): in his study more than 98% of 302 respondents agree with statements regarding the influence that effective followers have on the organization and on the work group. Thus, followers “who recognize a leader’s flawed thinking and challenge the leader to consider alternative courses of action […] are highly desirable in today’s organizational environments” (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera & McGregor, 2010, p. 557). This points to the importance of proactive followership: a type of followership which can be better expressed if the organizational context is suitable (Carsten et al., 2010).
Another, and, in this brief list, final reason for interest in this issue is that the study of leadership per se might benefit from a deeper knowledge of followership (Brown & Thornborrow, 1996), given that followership is a complement to leadership (Howell & Costley, 2006) and that “leadership and followership are linked concepts” (Heller & Van Til, 1982, p. 405). It is precisely because of
this two-fold link between leadership and followership that the literature on the latter should be re-read in conjunction with the leadership literature, as Shamir (2007) and Crossman and Crossman (2011) have done. Crossman and Crossman (2011), particularly, identified “four broad overlapping categories within a fluid continuum” (p. 484), which present different conceptions of followers and followership: 1) individualized or leader-centric theories; 2) leader-centred theories which rely on follower perspectives; 3) multiple leadership which encompasses what is often referred to as shared, distributed or collective leadership; 4) the followership literature per se (Cortese, Ghislieri, Gatti & Tartari, 2013).
This study is concerned with one of these categories, that of the followership literature per se. We’ve chosen this particular area of study considering that in this literature followership is intended as a process which is qualitatively different from leadership. That allows followership to establish itself as a field of investigation, extending the interest from top-level leaders (on which the leader-centric literature had for years focused) to middle management (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). This line of study is opened by pioneering investigations by Kelley (1988, 1992) and Chaleff (1995), the “primary works on which subsequent discussions of followership were based” (Baker, 2007, p. 50).
Followers’ Active Engagement
This study chooses to consider a specific aspect of followership behavior described by Kelley (1988, 1992), that is followers’ Active Engagement, using the scale he proposed (1992) to measure this behavior. Kelley is not the only scholar to emphasize followers’ importance in organizational dynamics, and recent work has built fruitfully on his definition of followership (Carsten et al., 2010; Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007). Nevertheless, Kelley is acknowledged to have been the first to draw attention to why people follow (Blackshear, 2003), as well as to the topic of followership per se (Baker, 2007; Crossman & Crossman, 2011). In addition, his followership scale, although not devoid of critical aspects (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock, 2009; Tanoff & Barlow, 2002), has been adopted in a number of investigations published in the last decade
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 3 31/07/14 14:33
270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research4
(Blanchard et al., 2009; Mushonga & Torrance, 2008; Tanoff & Barlow, 2002).
In Kelley’s work, effective followership was operationalized along two main dimensions. The first is Independent Critical Thinking, with behaviors like offering constructive criticism and showing the ability to think for oneself, with creativity and innovation. This study concentrates on the second dimension of the model that is Active Engagement: the typical features include the propensity to take initiative, participate actively and be self-starters. For this dimension, the concept of engagement, which has received renewed attention in the last years (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), assumes central importance.
Employees who are engaged in their work are fully connected with their work roles (Bakker, 2011) and work engagement may be defined like an active, positive work- related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Bakker (2011) shows that engagement is different from job satisfaction because it combines pleasure and activation; is different from the flow because of longer duration; is wider than the motivation (dedication) because it associates also a cognitive component (absorption) and emotional (vigor).
Followers’ Active Engagement is a specific type of engagement not referable to the work itself but to the relationship with the leader. Followers’ Active Engagement refers to a set of behaviors related to the explicit requirements but also to the non-expressed expectations of the leader: the follower that is actively engaged in the relationship with his leader is involved in doing the best in this relationship (Cortese et al., 2013).
In the most recent developments of his theory, Kelley (2008) stresses the importance of further studies of the antecedents, whether individual, social or cultural, that may influence followership behaviors.
More generally, the literature on the topic shares this interest and points out that potential antecedents of followership behaviors could be investigated taking into account socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, educational level, ethnicity, and seniority (in the organization and in the specific work role) (e.g., Baker, Mathis & Stites-Doe, 2011; Blanchard et al., 2009), personal/ dispositional variables (e.g. Mushonga & Torrance, 2008; Tanoff & Barlow, 2002), and characteristics of the job and
of person-organization interaction (e.g. Blanchard et al., 2009; Carsten et al., 2010).
To date, the studies that explored the antecedents of followership behaviors, and particularly of Active Engagement, focused on dispositional variables. Tanoff and Barlow (2002) investigate leadership personality traits using a research tool which adopts the Five Factor Model (McCrae & John, 1992). The personality factors showed a positive association with followers’ Active Engagement, above all Dynamic (Extraversion) and Conscientious (Conscientiousness). Mushonga and Torrance (2008) conducted a similar study, combining the Five Factor Model with followers’ Active Engagement. They found that conscientiousness has a significant relation with Active Engagement.
Aim of the study
The aim of this study is to continue the investigation of the antecedents of Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE). In particular, the study analyzes the relationships among different variables, i.e. personal/dispositional, individual- organization interaction, and control variables, with F.AE.
In this paragraph we will describe the variables that are investigated in this study, briefly stating the meaning and the direction of the expected relationship with the F.AE.
Among personal/dispositional variables this study considers: extraversion, intellect and avoiding coping. The term extraversion (McCrae & John, 1992) identifies the personality factor otherwise known as “surgency” (Goldberg, 1990). Wilt and Revelle (2009) pointed out a number of reasons to investigate it further, concerning the relationship of extraversion with aspects of social functioning and well-being in different life domains (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). Coherently with the literature, extraversion can be expected to show positive relationship with F.AE (Tanoff & Barlow, 2002).
Intellect (Goldberg, 1990) is also labeled as “openness to experience” (Costa & McCrae, 1985). People who get high scores on this dimension tend to describe themselves as educated, informed, interested in new experiences and contacts with different people and cultures. Basing on the description of the constructs, we can expect a positive
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 4 31/07/14 14:33
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
5
relationship between this factor and F.AE (Mushonga & Torrance, 2008).
As regards coping, generally refers to the ability to face situations (Frydenberg, 1997) and can be defined as “the use of cognitive and behavioral strategies to manage the demands of a situation when these are appraised as taxing or exceeding one’s resources or to reduce the negative emotions and conflict caused by stress” (APA, 2007, p. 232). In particular, the dimension of avoiding coping is described as the reduction by an individual of the efforts to cope with the stressor, also ceasing to try to achieve the objectives with which these same sources of stress interfere (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). Avoiding coping should show a negative relationship with F.AE, especially as regards what pertains to being strongly involved in one’s work “experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008: 210).
Among individual-organization interaction variables this study investigates: organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and leader-member exchange (LMX).
The first construct, OCBs, relates to behaviors that, while not critical to the job or to carrying out the tasks, however, are useful for organizational functioning (Lee & Allen, 2002). These behaviors can be addressed to different targets: the literature distinguishes between organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals (OCBI) and organizational citizenship behaviors directed at organization (OCBO). As for organizational citizenship, taken into consideration following Blanchard et al.’s (2009) suggestion, as a construct that expresses the degree of involvement in the organization (Van Dyne, Graham & Dienesch, 1994), we can expect a positive relationship with F.AE, like that found between commitment and Active Engagement by Blanchard et al. (2009).
The second construct, LMX, concerns an expression of mature leadership relationships that foster partnerships between the leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). It is expected to show a positive relationship with Active Engagement, since we may think that the expression of a mature leadership could correspond to the expression of an active followership.
Among control variables this study takes into consideration: gender, length of employment, tenure with the current supervisor and Lie scale. Organizational tenure
and gender are considered important control variables in leadership literature (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Baker et al. (2011) therefore suggest that these variables, together with race/ethnicity, may also influence followership behaviors. Moreover, Carsten et al.’s (2010) qualitative study found that tenure with the current organization and tenure working with the current supervisor may affect the social construction of followership.
Finally, following the suggestion of Blanchard et al. (2009) about the importance of controlling for possible response bias due to social desirability in Kelley’s followership scale, the “Lie dimension”, as the tendency of individuals to present a distorted picture of themselves, was also investigated by a Lie scale.
Summarizing, our hypotheses are as follows. Hp.1 Personal/dispositional variables:
1. – 1a. Extraversion is positively related to F.AE 2. – 1b. Intellect is positively related to F.AE 3. – 1c. Avoiding coping is negatively related to F.AE.
Hp. 2 Individual-organization interaction variables: 1. – 2a. Both the dimensions of OCBI and OCBO are
– positively related to F.AE 2. – 2b. LMX is positively related to F.AE.
Hp. 3 Control variables: Lie scale has a weak positive relation with F.AE.
METHOD
Participants
The convenience sample consisted of 390 respondents from heterogeneous work settings, all employed in the services sector with an open-ended and full-time contract.
The sample consisted of 72.1% females and 27.9% males. Respondents’ average age is around 40 years (SD = 7.58). Average length of employment was approximately 16 years (SD = 10.24), with respondents working an average of around 37 hours per week (SD = 5.27).
Respondents’ tenure with the current supervisor averaged slightly over 5 years (SD = 6.10).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 5 31/07/14 14:33
270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research6
Procedure
A questionnaire was administered in web-based format to all the respondents. Before filling in the questionnaire the respondents received an Information Sheet via email. The same information was written on the first page of the web- questionnaire, clarifying that the participation to the survey was absolutely voluntary and that the survey could be filled out anonymously to guarantee that individual findings were strictly confidential.
Measures
The questionnaire includes a socio-demographical section (gender, length of employment and tenure with the current supervisor) and seven measures.
Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE): six items that explicitly mentioned the relationship with the leader (alpha .92, e.g., “Do you independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute significantly to your departmental chairperson’s or your department’s goals?”), of the Italian validation (Gatti, Tartari, Cortese & Ghislieri, 2014) of Kelley’s questionnaire (1992). These items were presented in a 7-point Likert format (0 = Rarely and 6 = Almost always). The EFA solution explained 66.56% of the variance.
Extraversion: ten items (e.g., “Feel comfortable around people”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very inaccurate and 5 = Very accurate), taken from Goldberg (1992). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .86, and the EFA solution explained 38.02% of the variance.
Intellect: ten items (e.g., “Spend time reflecting on things”) on the same 5-point Likert scale described above, taken from Goldberg (1992). Cronbach’s alpha was .79, and the EFA solution explained 28.03% of the variance.
Avoiding coping: four items (e.g., “I reduce the amount of effort I’m putting into solving the problem”), with response choices scored from 1 = I usually don’t do this at all to 4 = I usually do this a lot, from the COPE scales developed by Carver et al. (1989).
Cronbach’s alpha was .80, while the EFA solution explained 51.09% of the variance.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: eight items in 7-point Likert format (1 = Never and 7 = Always) from
the scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). This scale taps OCBs along two dimensions, distinguishing between behaviors directed at individuals, or OCBI, and those directed at the organization, or OCBO. Examples of the items used for this purpose include, “Go out of the way to make newer employees feel welcome in the work group” (OCBI) and “Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image” (OCBO). Cronbach’s alpha was .84 for OCBI and .80 for OCBO. The two- factors solution explained 58.01% of the variance.
Leader-Member Exchange: twelve items (e.g., “I like my supervisor very much as a person”) in a 7-point Likert format (1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree), from Liden and Maslyn (1998). Cronbach’s alpha was .94, while the EFA solution explained 60.41% of the variance.
Lie scale: seven items (e.g., “I’ve always solved every problem that has occurred”) taken from the Italian adaptation of the Big Five Questionnaire by Caprara, Barbaranelli and Borgogni (1993) in a 5-point Likert format (1 = Very inaccurate and 5 = Very accurate).
Personality questionnaires’ use of Lie scales is one of the possible strategies for quantifying some of the more significant types of response bias (Paulhus, 1991). Cronbach’s alpha was .74, and the EFA solution explained 31.04% of the variance.
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed with PASW 18. After exploratory factor analysis (EFA, ML method of extraction), reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and descriptives on each scale, the correlations (Pearson’s r) and hierarchical multiple regression were used to explore the relationship between the variables.
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, reliability and correlations are shown in Table 1. F.AE correlates with all other measures except for LMX. Above all F.AE is positively correlated to intellect, OCBI and OCBO and negatively related to avoiding coping. Moreover there is a quite strong positive correlation between F.AE and the Lie scale (r .27, p<.01): it could deserve further investigation in order to discover potential response biases.
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 6 31/07/14 14:33
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
7
Table 1 - Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and correlations of all variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. F.AE –
2. Gender (1 = female) –.13* –
3. Length of employment –.15** .10 –
4. Tenure with supervisor –.11* .07 .29** –
5. Extraversion .19** .04 –.13** –.13** –
6. Intellect .28** –.02 –.07 –.06 .32** –
7. Avoiding coping –.30** .16** .15** .05 –.23** –.18** –
8. OCBI .24** .12* –.07 –.10 .21** .19** –.08 –
9. OCBO .29** .06 –.13* –.03 .18** .15** –.12* .48** –
10. LMX .09 .02 –.17** –.10 .09 .07 –.15** .21** .36** –
11. Lie scale .27** –.11 .02 –.08 .25** .41** –.12* .15** .18** .10 –
M 3.09 – 16.30 5.27 3.20 3.46 1.76 5.48 4.36 4.28 2.94
SD 1.48 – 10.24 6.10 1.06 .96 .80 1.21 1.61 1.83 .98
Alpha .92 – – – .86 .79 .80 .84 .80 .94 .74
Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01.
The results from the hierarchical regression analysis (see Table 2) show that F.AE is related to six variables (25% explained variance). Four were positively related: in decreasing order, OCBO (β = .17, p<.01), intellect (β = .13, p<.01), OCBI (β = .13, p<.05), and Lie scale (β = .12, p<.05). Conversely, avoiding coping (β = –.24, p<.001), and gender (1 = female, β = –.14, p<.01) were negatively related. Gender becomes significant only in the second step of the regression when dispositional variables are included and the beta coefficient of intellect and Lie scale decrease in the third step of the regression.
The change in explained variance (ΔR2) for each of the three steps of the regression is significant (p<.001) similar to the others. Specifically, we obtained: .10 for control variables, .09 for personal/dispositional variables and .06 for individual- organization interaction variables (see Table 2). The lowest increment of R2 for the organizational dimensions is in part due to the unexpected non-significant β coefficient of LMX.
DISCUSSION
This study deepens the comprehension of followers’ Active Engagement (Kelley, 1992).
As regards the hypotheses on personal/dispositional variables, the relationship between extraversion and F.AE (Hp. 1a) is not confirmed, in contrast to what is found in literature (Mushonga & Torrance, 2008). Intellect shows a positive relationship with Active Engagement (Hp. 1b), a result that is consistent with the previous study of Mushonga and Torrance (2008).
People who describe themselves as open to experience may be more inclined to exhibit behaviors of Active Engagement, assuming the ownership of the work, taking initiative in problem solving and decision-making and accepting change in a constructive way (Kelley, 1992).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 7 31/07/14 14:33
270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research8
Table 2 - Hierarchical multiple regression. Dependent variable: Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE)
Independent variables F.AE
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Sex (1 = Female) –.09 –.11* –.14**
Length of employment –.13* –.08 –.06
Tenure with leader –.01 –.01 –.02
Lie scale .26*** .15** .12*
Extraversion – .05 .02
Intellect – .16** .13*
Avoiding coping – –.24*** –.24***
OCBI – – .13*
OCBO – – .17**
LMX – – –.08
R2 .10 .19 .25
ΔR2 .10*** .09*** .06***
Note. N = 390; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
Coherently we observe, on the contrary, a negative relationship with avoiding coping (Hp. 1c), construct which detects the tendency to keep oneself away from problematic situations (Carver et al., 1989). This coping strategy could be linked, therefore, to more passive followership behaviors with little propensity for social interactions and low motivation to engage in new tasks (Kelley, 1992). Hp. 1b and Hp. 1c have therefore been confirmed.
With respect to the hypotheses concerning individual- organization interaction variables, the study confirmed only the first hypothesis, related to the two dimensions of OCBs (Hp. 2a). Both the behaviors towards colleagues and the behaviors towards the organization, show a positive relationship with F.AE. This result provides a partial response to the call of Blanchard et al. (2009) who identify organizational citizenship as one of the aspects to be explored. In a work environment perceived as “responsive to the other” and as a place where an attitude of openness and exchange between people is promoted, followers may express higher levels of Active Engagement. It is possible that the link between organizational citizenship and followership’s efficacy steps
through the concept of “participation”: an interaction with a work context that is supportive of colleagues as well as of the organization and its image (Lee & Allen, 2002), could foster behaviors toward the leader probably characterized by the same dynamism and involvement.
The Hp. 2b, on the contrary, was not confirmed: we found a not significant correlation between F.AE and LMX and the latter shows a not significant relation also in the regression analysis.
Lastly, Hp. 3 was confirmed. There is a relationship between F.AE and the Lie scale, and can also be seen in the multiple regression, which shows a limited impact of social desirability on F.AE. This finding suggests that, as expected, F.AE is influenced by social desirability. Accordingly, in further and more complex studies on F.AE (as well as of other variables that require a self-assessment of behaviors/ attitude expected by organizations) it will be important to control for this dimension and, where possible, to add hetero-assessment measures.
Moreover, results show a significant relationship with gender, among the socio-demographic characteristics used
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 8 31/07/14 14:33
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
9
as control variables. This finding appears to be in line with the differences between men’s and women’s descriptions of their follower roles that emerged from Berg’s qualitative study (1998): it could be that women, as followers, are more prone and available to interpret their role as supportive of the work of someone else and less competitive which could result in lower level of F.AE.
Among the limitations of this study, first of all it is based on a self-report questionnaire, therefore the collected data may have been influenced by response bias. Even if we have checked for lie scale, the study didn’t consider other control variables to measure response bias. Moreover, the study is based on a cross- sectional design in which the direction of the relationship can only be suggested by the researchers themselves. At last, the study has also been carried out in a convenience sample that is, moreover, biased with respect to gender.
With regard to possible developments of this study, it would be useful comparing workers in different professions or workers belonging to different organizational contexts to develop new hypotheses on differences in followership at work. Furthermore, the relation between F.AE and LMX would benefit from further investigation. The findings of this study show that the constructs do not overlap, a risk that we would have considered chiefly by using an LMX scale such as that by Liden and Maslyn (1998), which analyses followers’ contribution as an LMX subdimension. However, no relationship was found, an unexpected result that deserves further study. The LMX scale, in fact, is a measure of the quality of the relationship that focuses on the “exchange” between leaders and followers (Liden & Maslyn, 1998), as an expression of mature leadership relationships, which lead to a “partnership” between leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
In addition, other individual-organization interaction variables (e.g., quality of internal communication and perceived organizational support), which may influence the expression of a proactive and engaged followership, could be included.
CONCLUSIONS
Further studies on followership should help to clarify the dynamics that influence the behavior of the followers as well as the dynamics of the mutual relationship between the behavior
of the leader and of the follower, but also to understand more precisely what the possible consequences for the organization are, in terms of quality of work life and productivity.
These deeper investigations on the issue of followership could integrate into the body of leadership knowledge (Brown & Thornborrow, 1996; Densten & Gray, 2001), making it more complete and balanced and fostering organizational development and training. This would be particularly important for those workers who, as middle-managers, are constantly asked to be both effective leader and follower (Latour & Rast, 2004).
In this connection, future research should aim at several targets including: more precisely identifying the distinctive qualities of followership; focusing skills that followership and leadership could have “in common”; defining the preconditions useful for the expression of effective forms of leadership and followership; helping to change the “culture of followership”, making the sometimes stereotyped image of followers more complex and sticking to reality.
To reach these aims it will be important to address the topic through qualitative studies, whereby an “embedded” knowledge (Scaratti, 2014) of followership can be constructed.
This will shed light on the meanings and the representations assigned to followership – as a result of a negotiation process among organizational actors – in specific organizational settings, to gain a better understanding of their relational dynamics.
A better knowledge of followership may also help leaders to identify areas of mutual influence with followers, thus promoting job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational change (Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009).
Therefore it would thus be important to develop leadership and followership training programs that support F.AE both in leaders’ expectations and in followers’ behaviors (Clements & Washbush, 1999). Moreover, in view of the reciprocal influences involved, a well-designed leadership and followership training will be helpful in identifying the potential “dark side” in leader- follower relationships, i.e. collusive dynamics, relational traps, and so forth (Lipman-Blumen, 2007).
It is about planning a training that is able to encourage people to develop a realistic view of themselves as they are placed in a network of relationships with different roles and demands, by improving the capacity for self-criticism and raising the possibility that they confront themselves with their mistakes; to make aware of the importance that followers accurately assess the feedback they receive from their supervisors and
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 9 31/07/14 14:33
270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research10
the feedback they are able to offer in turn to the supervisors themselves; to promote the reflection among the leaders about the need to realize an observation and an interpretation of the behavior of their followers that is, as much as possible, accurate and free from distortion.
Training interventions adopting a participatory and reflective perspective, that is, all those methods that put the relationship in a central position (Ghislieri & Gatti, 2012), appear to be consistent with this framework. This is the same feature that some authors consider so much necessary to be “natural” in the development of leadership (McCauley & Guthrie, 2007) and could also become that natural in the development of followership.
References
AGHO, A.O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on
effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 16, 159-166.
APA (2007). Dictionary of psychology. GR VandenBos (Ed).
California: American Psychological Association.
AVOLIO, B.J., WALUMBWA, F.O. & WEBER, T.J. (2009). Leadership:
Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
BAKER, S.D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation
of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14 (1), 50-60.
BAKER, S.D., MATHIS, C.J. & STITES-DOE, S. (2011). An
exploratory study investigating leader and follower characteristics
at U.S. healthcare organizations. Business–Economics, 23 (3),
341-363. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/
bus_facpub/8 (accessed 21 January 2014).
BAKKER, A.B. (2011). An Evidence-Based Model of Work
Engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4),
265-269.
BAKKER, A.B. & DEMEROUTI, E. (2008). Towards a model of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209-223.
BERG, D.N. (1998). Resurrecting the muse: Followership in
organizations. In E.B. Klein, F. Gabelnick & P. Herr (Eds.),
The Psychodynamics of Leadership. Madison, CT: Psychosocial
Press, 27-52.
BLACKSHEAR, P.B. (2003). The followership continuum: a model
for increasing organizational productivity. The Public Manager,
32 (2), 25-29.
BLANCHARD, A.L., WELBOURNE, J., GILMORE, D. & BULLOCK,
A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to
organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12 (2), 111-131.
BROWN, A.D. & THORNBORROW, W.T. (1996). Do organizations
get the followers they deserve? Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 17 (1), 5-11.
CALDWELL, D., CHATMAN, J., O’REILLY, C., ORMISTON, M.
& LAPIZ, M. (2008). Implementing strategic change in a heath
care system: The importance of leadership and change readiness.
Health Care Management Review, 33 (2), 124-133.
CAPRARA, G.V., BARBARANELLI, C. & BORGOGNI, L. (1993). BFQ:
Big Five Questionnaire. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.
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.
CARVER, C.S., SCHEIER, M.F. & WEINTRAUB, J.K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
CHALEFF, I.. (1995). The Corageous Follower: Standing up to & for our Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
CLEMENTS, C. & WASHBUSH, J.B. (1999). The two faces of
leadership: Considering the dark side of leader-follower
dynamics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11, 170-176. COLLINSON, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-
structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179-189.
CORTESE, C.G., GHISLIERI, C., GATTI, P. & TARTARI, M. (2013).
La followership nelle organizzazioni. Studi organizzativi, 2, 9-35.
COSTA, P.T. Jr & McCRAE, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
CROSSMAN, B. & CROSSMAN, J. (2011). Conceptualising
followership—a review of the literature. Leadership, 7, 481-497.
DENSTEN, I.L. & GRAY, J.H. (2001). The links between
followership and the Experiential Learning Model:
Followership coming of age. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 8 (1), 69-76.
DIXON, G. (2008). Getting together. In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff
& J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EAGLY, A.H. & JOHNSON, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233-256.
FRYDENBERG, E. (1997). Adolescent Coping: Theoretical and
Research Perspectives. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni
Speciali (tr. it. 2000).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 10 31/07/14 14:33
Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and Organizational Dimensions
11
GATTI, P., TARTARI, M., CORTESE C.G. & GHISLIERI, C. (2014).
A Contribution to the Italian Validation of Kelley’s Followership
Questionnaire. TPM, 21 (1), 67-87.
GHISLIERI, C. & GATTI, P. (2012). Generativity and balance in
leadership. Leadership, 8, 257-275.
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”:
The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-
Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 26-42.
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. The Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
HELLER, T. & VAN TILL, J.V. (1982). Leadership and followership:
Some summary propositions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18 (3), 405-414.
HOWELL, J.P. & COSTLEY, D.L. (2006). Understanding Behaviors for
Effective Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HURWITZ, M. & HURWITZ, S. (2009). The romance of the follower:
Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41 (2), 80-86.
KELLEY, R.E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard Business Review, 66 (6), 142-148.
KELLEY, R.E. (1992). The Power of Followership. New York: Dubleday.
Roma: Franco Angeli Editore (tr. it. 1994).
KELLEY, R.E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R.E. Riggio, I.
Chaleff & J. Lipman–Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LATOUR, S.M. & RAST, V.J. (2004). Dynamic followership: The prerequisite
of effective leadership. Air and Space Power Journal, 18 (4), 102-110.
LEE, K. & ALLEN, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior
and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 131-142.
LIDEN, R.C. & MASLYN, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of
leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management, 24 (1), 43-72.
LIPMAN-BLUMEN, J. (2007). Toxic leaders and the fundamental
vulnerability of being alive. 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. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.
McCAULEY, C.D. & GUTHRIE, V.A. (2007). Designing relationships
for learning into leader development programs. In B.R. Ragins &
K.M. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work. Theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCRAE, R.R. & JOHN, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175.215.
Available at: http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/courses/psyc5112/
readings/psnbig5_mccrae03.pdf (accessed 2 January 2014).
MONTGOMERY, C.A. (2008). Putting leadership back into strategy.
Harvard Business Review, 86 (1), 54-60.
MUSHONGA, S. & TORRANCE, C. (2008). Assessing the
relationship between followership and the big five factor model
of personality. Review of Business Research, 8 (2), 185-193.
OZER, D.J. & BENET-MARTINEZ, V. (2006). Personality and
the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 401-421.
PAULHUS, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias.
In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures
of Personality and Social Psychological Attitude. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press Elsevier.
SCARATTI, G. (2014). The Rear Window: A Project for a Screenplay on
the elcoming of Roma Families. Qualitative Inquiry, 20 (2), 193-202.
SHAMIR, B. (2007). From passive recipients as 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. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
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, 22-28, 49-51.
STINSON, J.E. & ROBERTSON, J.H. (1973). Follower-maturity and
preference for leader-behavior style. Psychological Reports, 32, 247-250.
TANOFF, G.F. & BARLOW, C. (2002). Leadership and followership:
Same animal, different spots? Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 54 (3), 157-167.
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. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
VAN DYNE, L., GRAHAM, J.W. & DIENESCH, R.M. (1994).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 765-802.
WILT, J. & REVELLE, W. (2009). Extraversion. In M. Leary & R. Hoyle
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behaviour.
New York, NY: Guilford Press. Available at: http://personality-
project.org/revelle/publications/wr.ext.08.pdf (accessed 21
January 2014).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 11 31/07/14 14:33
Copyright of Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata is the property of Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.