LP762-L2 WEEK 6
KarenS
FOLLOWERSHIPINLEADERSHIPSTUDIESACaseofLeaderFollowerTradeApproach.pdf
6
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Volume 7, Number 4, 2014 ©2014 University of Phoenix View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com • DOI:10.1002/jls.21306
leadership effectiveness than followership. Even the general public seems to continue advocating for leader- ship and neglecting followership, although nearly 80% of people function as followers who have been growing stronger whereas leaders have weakened in the last 2 decades (Kelley, 1992). According to Kelley (1992), such “single-minded conformism” in our modern soci- ety has caused a serious defi ciency and problem in lead- ership studies, in both theory and practice. Society as a whole has been aff ected by the “cult of leadership”
Followership has never been a part of educational curricula in the West until the turn of this century. Leadership conversely seems almost a monopolized dis- cipline that teaches how to infl uence people and make the leader successful in order to reach personal and organizational goals through success, effectiveness, and productivity. Th e emphasis in these programs is on how to be a leader and/or a manager rather than a follower (International Leadership Association, 2013).2 Th ere seems to be more concern nowadays for
F O L L O W E R S H I P I N
L E A D E R S H I P S T U D I E S
A Case of Leader–Follower Trade Approach
PETROS G. MALAKYAN
The current article acknowledges the absence of followership from the leadership literature for many
years. Major theories of leadership are reviewed to assert that (1) modern leadership studies have
been developed strictly from the leader’s perspective with little or no attention on followership,
(2) leadership studies have primarily been based on the static understanding of leadership (leaders
always remain leaders),1 and (3) there seems to be a need for a new paradigm for leader–follower
relationships, which may result in organic relationships between leaders and followers through
exchange of leadership and followership functions and roles. Thus, it is argued that the mutuality
of relationships and infl uence between the follower and the leader exists. To address the need for a
new paradigm for leadership, the leader–follower trade (LFT) approach is introduced, which may result
in the nonstatic and organic approach to leadership–followership as two valuable human behavioral
functions. In this case, leadership and followership functions and roles may be traded or exchanged
by the positional leaders and followers in different situations or organizational settings toward mutual
respect, empowerment, and effectiveness.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 7
it has become more evident that leaders cannot exist without followers, because both are defi ned in rela- tionships, and without that relationship, leaders and followers cease to exist (Kellerman, 2007; Rost, 1993, 2008).
Background Leadership studies in the past have been primarily leader-focused (Hollander, 1992), whereas the study of followership was either neglected or separated from leadership studies. James MacGregor Burns stated:
Thirty years ago, I wrote that “one of the most seri-
ous failures in the study of leadership has been the
bifurcation between the literature on leadership and
the literature on followership.” Surely, I added, it was
“time that the two literatures be brought together.”3
Today, a new literature is emerging and seems to be gaining momentum: research and writing on fol- lowership. The literature seeks ways to educate, or better train, exemplary, courageous, and great follow- ers, who are not only willing to stand up for change and for leaders and organizations but also are able to create great leaders and organizations (Chaleff , 2009; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1992; Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008). Th e latter seems to have taken the same one-sided approach this time by primarily focusing on followers or follower-centered research (Shamir, 2007). However, Van Vugt et al. (2008) argue that:
First, leadership cannot be studied apart from follow-
ership and that an adequate account of the leadership
process must consider the psychology of followers.
Second, the goals of leaders and followers do not
always converge, a fact that creates a fundamental
ambivalence in the relationship between leaders and
followers. (p. 193).
Furthermore, no further steps are taken to minimize the power gap between leaders and followers within organizations and communities. How can a follower be courageous, eff ective, and do all of the above when he or she is powerless? Th e power of making decisions and leading organizations is, for the most part, still in the hands of leaders whom we select or appoint. Moreover, the leadership research has not taken the two sides of
(Kelley, 1992, pp. 9, 14) that has been sweeping across education, business, and other spheres of public life beginning from the times of the Industrial Revolution (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008, p. 188).
During the 1700s in France and England, employees or subordinates were categorized as commodities for those whose primary goal was making profi t at any cost. Employees became human resources, much like natural resources or material possessions. By using the words of Buber (1958), followers were treated by lead- ers as “I–It,” which assumes object–subject, distant, no relationship between the two, pastness, as opposed to “I–Th ou,” which presupposes presence, relationships, mutuality, openness, humanness, and in the case of leadership, being there for genuine relationships and dialogue between leaders and followers (Friedman, 2002, pp. 197, 354).
By the end of the 18th century, the leader–follower relationship became based on social and economic exploitations and psychological manipulations toward the production of material goods and consumption by the followers themselves. Th us, the task of modern social and behavioral scientists had been to learn how to make business leaders or managers—not necessarily followers—more eff ective and successful in the indus- trialized world (Baker, 2007; Van Vugt et al., 2008; Wielkiewicz & Stelzner, 2005). Such a perspective laid a foundation for the modern school of management and later, theories of leadership.
Today, we live in a postindustrial era. The time has come for the “sheep” mentality of the follower to be lifted (Kelley, 1992, p. 37). Followers have more rights and freedoms than ever before in the history of humankind. Th ey can refuse to follow leaders who are selfi sh and greedy. Only in the last half century researchers began to realize that the study of follower- ship was a necessity (Kelley, 1988, 1992, 2008) for two reasons. First, the centuries-long confl ict-dilemma between leaders and followers has not been resolved in either theoretical or practical levels primarily because followership has not been studied along with leader- ship in organizational contexts. Followers could not be ignored or overlooked anymore, because they began fully engaged in organizational and social transforma- tion and some even took moral actions against the toxic leaders regardless of the cost (Chaleff , 2009). Second,
8 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
are called leaders and those who do followership are called followers).
Followership in Leadership Studies Th e great man theory or the trait approach, the earliest sys- tematic study of leadership (Bass, 1981; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986), does not address followership. While starting with a presupposi- tion that leaders are born with special personal qualities or traits, Stogdill (1948) concluded that no universally consistent set of traits diff erentiates leaders from non- leaders and that a person with leadership traits who is a leader in one situation may not be a leader in another situation. Moreover, a systematic study of followership had not been a part of the leadership research until the early 1990s. One of the evidences of this research omission is the complementary list of leadership traits with no followership traits developed from 1948 to 2004 (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986; Mann, 1959; Stogdill, 1948, 1974; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004) with the exception of the authentic leadership research, where the leader and follower development is considered (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May, & Walumbwa, 2005).
Human behavior has been perceived to be the result of various factors (traits, habits, instincts, emotions, passions, motivations, personal desire, preferences, environment, etc.). Th us the trait approach falls short in depicting one person as a leader and the other a nonleader (Cavell, 2007).
Th e skills approach, which aimed to solve complex problems in organizational leadership (Katz, 1974; Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, 2000), omits the leader–follower dynamic as a subject of study. Th e skills approach fails to discuss followership skills, which equally may be obtained through training and education. Moreover, the skills approach certainly overlooks the fact that the leader is also a follower, who needs not only leadership but also followership skills to be more eff ective in various situations.
The style approach, which defines leadership as relational and task-oriented behavior (Ohio State and Michigan State studies), as well as managerial or leadership grid (Blake & Mouton, 1985) to explain the importance of concern for people and concern for
the equation within the discipline into careful consid- eration: a study of the leader and the follower as one researchable topic. As a result, the so-called static offi ce of “leadership” has been created with little or no power exchange between leaders and followers. For instance, in the leadership research a significant number of scholars seem to ascribe French and Raven’s (1959) fi ve bases of power primarily to leaders with perhaps little consideration of followers operating from the same power bases.4 Furthermore, the positional lead- ership and the use of power in its various forms often have produced abuse of power and leadership roles in the world throughout human history. Even leaders in democratic societies are not exempt from positional leadership abuse, selfi shness, unethical behaviors, and greediness (Kellerman, 2012).
Th e static concept of leadership has not produced the expected results in the private nor in the public sec- tor of the world’s societies (Kellerman, 2012). Persons occupying leadership positions may not be able to lead everyone in every situation eff ectively, because they cannot be eff ective in leading others all the time. In other words, someone leading all of the time seems to be ineffective and unnatural. Subsequently, the positional leader may allow others to lead, which may prove to be more eff ective and effi cient. Th us, if one is not and cannot be a leader at all times in all situations, then the concept of a “leader” as a noun does not exist and seems rather a myth. Th e mythical concept of a “leader” results in dangerous and toxic leaders obsessed by its fi ctitious glory and fame. Th us a challenge exists: how can we make leadership and followership acces- sible to more people and make followership and lead- ership exchangeable in decision-making processes and actions?
Change may be needed in our understanding and execution of leadership and followership. Th is does not mean, however, abandoning what has already been established in leadership studies, but rather bringing followership into the discussion and studying leader- ship along with followership as one unit. In the fol- lowing section, major leadership theories are analyzed in light of two guiding themes: fi rst, leadership stud- ies to be leader focused, and second, leadership and followership viewed as static roles, functions, and separate social identities (those who do leadership
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 9
special and privileged groups within the organization (Scandura, 1999). As in other theories, LMX theory is a leader-focused approach to leadership and does not consider leadership to be nonstatic and situational where leaders and followers interchangeably share their roles and responsibilities (Orwell, 1936). Th e model of in-group and out-group membership certainly omits the possibility of followers deciding whether or not their leader should be an in-group or an out-group member.
Transformational leadership focuses on individu- als’ transformational processes, including both lead- ers and followers (Bryman, 1992; Burns, 1978).
Transformational leadership, however, is again con- cerned with the leader’s behaviors (Bass, 1990; House, 1976) and can be viewed as elitist and antidemocratic (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988). Besides, the charismatic nature of transformational leadership can be destruc- tive as a result of leaders’ psychological infl uence on their followers (Conger, 1999). As with other theo- ries, transformational leadership is leader centric and holds a static view of both leader and follower, where the concept of transformational followership has not been explored. Can a transformational follower trans- form his or her leader and bring transformation in an organization?
Charismatic leadership refers to the natural abili- ties of leaders who are risk takers, arouse emotions, and motivate their followers beyond ordinary admira- tion (Freud, 1938; Zaleznik, 2009). Again, as in the other leadership theories, charismatic leadership does not address the charismatic followership dimension, because it is a leader-centered theory with a fi xed con- cept of leaders’ leadership behavior.
Team leadership, which provides the most non- static understanding of leadership and followership among other leadership theories, allows functional fl ex- ibility between team members to choose their own leader among the members of the team (Fisher, 1985; Hackman, 2002; Kinlaw, 1998), and has tendencies to focus more on the leader’s decision making toward team eff ectiveness through internal or external leader- ship interventions, than on the team members mov- ing from membership to leadership roles (e.g., Hill’s Model for Team Leadership, Northouse, 2013, p. 291). Moreover, in team leadership it seems unclear whether
productivity, seems, too, a leader-centered research, where the follower’s styles have not been studied. Th us, the style approach has overlooked the follower’s response to the leader’s styles and how the former’s behavior may aff ect or infl uence the latter’s eff ectiveness.
The situational approach, with its four leadership styles (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson 2012) is also a leader-oriented study, because followership styles and how they may aff ect the leader’s behavior have not been identifi ed. Although the situational approach takes fol- lowership into consideration, leadership and follower- ship are still viewed as static roles. Th us, the situational approach is a leader-centered and one-sided approach to the leader–follower dyad, where the styles have been perceived merely from the leader’s response to the fol- lower’s behavior in various situations.
Th e contingency theory, being a leader-match theory (Fiedler, 1964, 1967; Fiedler & Garcia, 1987), assumes that leadership eff ectiveness is contingent upon leader- ship style and leadership situation with no discussion of the followership style and its impact on leadership eff ectiveness. Th us, the contingency theory is leader focused and fails to provide a mutually preferred model of eff ectiveness.
Th e path-goal theory, which is concerned with the motivation of subordinates toward the goal set forth by the leader of the organization (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; House and Dessler, 1974), posits that no leader- ship responsibilities are assigned to subordinates in the leadership process to accomplish the goal. Th e organi- zational goals are not necessarily discussed and mutu- ally agreed upon by the leader and the follower. Th us the path-goal theory, like the other theories reviewed previously, operates from a static paradigm (the leader leads and the follower follows) of a leader and a fol- lower as not only diff erent functions but also as diff er- ent social identities in organizational contexts.
Th e leader–member exchange (LMX) theory, which puts sole emphasis on leader–follower interactions as a dyadic relationship within a three-phase develop- mental process (stranger, acquaintance, and partner) (Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995), seems to segregate followers into two types of groups: in-group and out-group.
Th e LMX theory thus can be easily accused of favorit- ism and unfairness, because it justifi es the existence of
10 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Authentic leadership is one of the few leadership the- ories where followership is fully present in research and the followers’ emotional reaction to the leader’s inauthentic behavior has been studied alongside of leadership (Eagly, 2005; Gardner et al., 2005; George, 2004; George & Sims, 2007). It focuses on the lead- er’s self-acceptance from an intrapersonal perspective without trying to be someone else (Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Goff ee & Jones, 2006; Shamir & Eilam, 2005) and also focuses on an interpersonal pro- cess toward transparent, authentic, and dyadic relation- ships and leadership credibility (Eagly, 2005; Gardner, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 2003, 2012). However, most scholars of authentic leadership still ascribe leadership and followership functions to two separate human identities. Th us, the theory seems to hold the static view of the leader and the follower.
The intercultural leadership research has not been exempt from the leader-focused approach. Social anthropologists, along with research groups such as GLOBE and scholars in cross-cultural psychology, international management, and communication, have studied leadership primarily from the leader perspective in the context of western and nonwestern cultures and societies (Berry, Segall, & Kagitcibasi, 1997; Chhokar, Brodbeck, & House, 2007; Crosby & Bryson, 2005; Deardorff, 2009; Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2004; Lewis, 2006; Sam & Berry, 2006; Schultz & Lavenda, 2012). The undertaken research tasks have been to understand leadership styles in light of multiple cul- tural characteristics that aff ect leaders (Doob, 1988; Hofstede, 1980, 1997, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Lewis, 2006).
In summary, it seems evident that most theories on leadership have been leader focused or leader centered. Th ey have been researched from the leader’s perspective and have taken a one-sided approach to the leader– follower dyadic relationships. Followers in most of the discussed theories are present but not necessarily the subject of study or research. The most popular definitions of leadership use the concept of influ- ence, hence the leader infl uencing the follower, but they ignore the infl uence of the follower. Th is is to say that right from the outset leadership has been defi ned from the leader’s point of view to serve the interest of the leader, whereas the interests of the followers have
the team members are team leaders or team followers and when and how they shift their roles. Once more, it is a leader-oriented approach, this time focusing on multiple individual leaders’ performance as leaders.
Shared, collective, or distributed leadership is interested in collective input, processes, distributing roles and responsibilities, and interactive infl uence, as well as fur- ther development of relationships between team mem- bers (Avolio, Walumbwa, & Weber, 2009; Carson, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004; Morris, 2005; Pearce & Conger, 2003). Although this approach minimizes the positional power gap between members of the team, it has a tendency to eliminate the followership functions among the team members and thus is a leader-focused theory. For instance, Pearce and Conger (2003) completely omit followership from their work on Shared Leadership.
Servant leadership, which begins from an altruistic attitude of a leader to serve as a result of his or her natural inner drive, claims to make others “healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants” (Greenleaf, Spears, & Covey, 2002, p. 27) and lead people at a higher level and beyond the day-to-day realities of organizational problems (Autry, 2004; Blanchard & Hodges, 2003), yet the focus here still seems to be on the one who becomes a leader through his or her service. Servant leadership still does not show how one can be a servant follower or how one may shift roles or functions from servant leadership to servant followership.
In the psychodynamic approach, which presupposes that leaders are more eff ective in their roles when they understand their own psychological world as well as that of their subordinates and that the emotional responses and habitual patterns of behavior of both leaders and followers are the result of strong infl uences from past experiences (Freud, 1938; Jung, 1961), the follower doesn’t necessarily seem to be the subject of study in relation to the leader.
In the leadership ethics approach, leaders’ failures and success are examined (Ciulla, 2002; Price, 2006, 2008), and leaders are encouraged to develop skills for moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral action (Rest, 1986). Here the leader is at the center of the research attention, so how can the follow- ers’ ethical behavior be discounted (Hollander, 1995)?
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 11
followers trade their functions from leader to follower and from follower to leader in order to develop their intrapersonal perspectives, foster interpersonal relation- ships, and maximize mutual eff ectiveness.
LFT APPROACH , LEADERSHIP
INFLUENCE, AND EFFECTIVENESS
From the perspective of the LFT approach, infl uence between the leaders and the followers is always mutual. Th ey mutually infl uence each other. Hollander (2009) calls it “two-way fl ow of infl uence” (p. 37), or as Martin Buber (1958) puts it, “I–Th ou” mutual dialogue. Th us, the study and research on leadership–followership as one unit focuses on mutual infl uence: the leader infl u- ences the follower, and the follower influences the leader. Moreover, eff ectiveness, according to the LFT approach, refers to a leader–follower dyad. As soon as the paradigm is shifted from a leader to a leader– follower dynamic, one may easily view eff ectiveness in light of leader–follower relationships. Eff ectiveness, in turn, which equally depends on the leader and the follower, is mutually addressed and evaluated. Both the leader and the follower seek eff ectiveness together. Th us the attitude of the leader and the follower toward each other seems to be a regulating determinant for eff ective leadership and followership. Th us the leader’s and the follower’s effectiveness is the condition for maximum eff ectiveness in a group or organizational setting.
LFT APPROACH IN THE TRAIT
APPROACH
Leadership traits do not make one superior over a per- son who has followership traits. After all, leadership and followership functions are valuable human func- tions and both leaders and followers possess unique tal- ents and abilities. Th us, the static concept of leadership seems discriminatory and separatist. Leadership here is taken as a mere function or a role, as opposed to social stratifi cations, that emerges in human interactions for service toward the common good of humanity. Th us, the LFT approach to leadership and followership, like situational behavioral functions, is more inclusive and humane because every person, although not equal, has both leadership and followership traits and abilities.
been primarily omitted. As Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009) state: “Perhaps one of the most inter- esting omissions in theory and research on leadership is the absence of discussions of followership and its impact on leadership” (p. 434). Finally, most leadership theories also seem to advocate the static paradigm of the leader and the follower as separate human identities resulting in social segregations (leaders remain leaders for leadership, whereas followers remain followers for followership). As a result, the exchange or the shifts of roles have not been considered.
A Case of Leader–Follower Trade Approach In this section, attempts have been made to view lead- ership and followership as interchangeable and valuable and yet as somewhat separate human functions per- formed by the same person, or more than one person, in diff erent situations. A new paradigm is advocated (Stech, 2008) where leadership and followership func- tions and roles may be traded or exchanged by lead- ers and followers in diff erent organizational settings. Kelley (1992) describes leadership and followership as “two separate concepts, two separate roles. Th ey are complementary, not competitive” (p. 40). In fact, one person functioning as both a leader and a follower may be more eff ective (Chaleff , 2012). Kelley (1992) then goes on to say:
If there is anything that the nineties have already
taught us, it’s that most people are both leaders and
followers. The role of followers and leaders are no
longer as clearly demarcated as they used to be. We
need to acknowledge both parts of ourselves. (p. 9).
To address the two problems in leadership studies (the omission of followership and the static concept of leadership and followership), the leader–follower trade (LFT) approach is introduced to the leadership theories as an organic way of doing leadership and followership and a new way of integrating followership into the leadership practice and research.5
The definition of the LFT approach is as follows: Leadership–followership processes occur in relation- ships and leading–following functions are exchangeable behaviors in human relationships. Th us, leaders and
12 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
of followers, then the relationship between diff erent fol- lowers must be taken into account. Th e style approach thus should address leader–follower, follower–leader, and follower–follower relationships and task behaviors.
LFT APPROACH IN THE SITUATIONAL
APPROACH
A paradigm shift from static to functional leadership and followership in the situational approach seems nec- essary. Rather than changing leadership styles, one may consider changing the leader’s function from leading to following and from following to leading. A person may exchange his or her functions (LFT approach) by focus- ing on developing either leadership or followership skills. Here the skills, style, and situational approaches come together to serve leader–follower mutual empow- erment, growth, performance, and job satisfaction. Th e situational approach then becomes equally benefi cial for both leaders and followers, which is to say, the leaders learn to follow in one situation and the followers learn to lead in another situation.
One of the shortfalls of the LFT approach in the situational approach may be the lack of willingness and competences on the part of both leaders and followers for functional exchange. For instance, if a participant is low in support and high in need, the leadership– followership functional exchange may be ineff ective. Th us, the willingness and competences of the leader and the follower must be considered for the LFT approach (see a further discussion on this topic later in the article).
LFT APPROACH IN THE CONTINGENCY
THEORY
Leadership eff ectiveness in the contingency theory, mea- sured by the LFT approach, is a way to promote leader and follower mutual eff ectiveness. Th is may require a mutual emphasis and analysis of styles and situations for the leader and the follower as a way to a mutually pre- ferred model of leadership and followership as opposed to the originally proposed leader-focused approach: LPC (least preferred coworker). Th e use of the LFT approach in the LPC scale in all three situational factors (leader–member relations, task structure, and position power) may change the entire dynamic of the contin- gency theory by adding the follower’s perspective on the
LFT APPROACH IN THE SKILLS
APPROACH
In order for the skills approach to be more applicable to multiple situations in various contexts, the focus must shift from the leader to the leader–follower dimension of skills. Th e leader needs to obtain the follower’s skills and vice versa, because true eff ectiveness is measured by one’s ability to function both as a leader and a follower. Unlike the trait theory, where the interaction takes place between the leader and follower, the skills approach is two dimensional: leader–follower/leader–follower. Th us, to introduce the LFT approach to the skills approach, the leader then is expected to learn how to function as a follower in one situation, and the follower is expected to learn to function as a leader in another. Or, in another situation, the same leader may pass on the learned skills to his or her followers.
Th e skills approach is true for every individual, ethnic group, and people worldwide. Skills are important for eff ective performance of leading and following func- tions. Leaders and followers interact and infl uence each other through a skills exchange and learning if: (1) the leader is willing to learn from the followers how to fol- low and (2) the followers are willing to learn from their leader how to lead. Th erefore, if the LFT approach is used in the skills approach, it may enhance development and advancement in the leader–follower relationships.
LFT MODEL IN THE ST YLE APPROACH
Th e LFT approach, in response to the leader’s behavior, changes the entire understanding of the style approach, because the latter has been leader focused. By adding a new dimension to the theory (e.g., followership style), new leader–follower-focused research may be necessary to understand the two-way dynamic (Chaleff , 2008).
Th e relational and task behaviors are characteristic of both leaders and followers. If the mutual relation- ship between the leader and the follower is taken into account, then the style approach should equally apply to the leader and the follower (including the follower’s task and relationship behavior). Th us the LFT approach adds to the quest for a matching style of the leader and the follower (Bjugstad, Th ach, Th ompson, & Morris, 2006). In this case, the challenge of the leader is not only his or her own behavior but also that of the fol- lowers. Moreover, if the leader is dealing with a group
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 13
out-group categorizations) if both leaders and followers exchange their roles or group affi liations as opposed to mere content and process exchange.5 In certain instances, because the LFT approach presupposes an ongoing exchange or trade of leadership and follower- ship functions between the leaders and the followers in various situations, the in-group and the out-group models may become outmoded and be eliminated from the LMX theory in certain situations or organizational settings. Moreover, by minimizing the leader’s bias of favoritism through the use of the LFT approach, the LMX theory may foster a more mutually respectful dis- tribution of responsibilities and benefi ts to in-group and out-group members.
LFT APPROACH IN TRANSFORMATIONAL
LEADERSHIP
From the perspective of the LFT approach, transfor- mational leadership considers the possibility for trans- formational followership and advocates for mutual transformation. Much like the mutual influence between the follower and the leader, the transforma- tional infl uence is also mutual. Th us, transformational leadership and followership are beyond who the leaders or the followers are. Th ey transcend human limitations and embrace a vision that is always bigger and higher than the leaders’ or the followers’ abilities.
Moreover, although transformational leadership pro- motes inspiration and empowerment for followers and enhances personal and organizational change and growth, the intention has never been the transformation of the follower into a change agent. However, just like leaders, followers are also agents for change (Kellerman, 2008). Th us, the LFT approach may open new horizons for followers to be functionally transformed into lead- ers equipped for leadership tasks. In the process both the leader and the follower are transformed into a new functional reality: the leader becomes a follower and the follower becomes a leader, which may off er solutions to the problems in transformational leadership (lone-ranger mentality, psychological infl uence, elitism).
LFT APPROACH IN CHARISMATIC
LEADERSHIP
If a person is charismatic by nature, then regardless of his or her functions, that person may well be not only
LPC model as well as the combination of the latter’s leader and follower dimensions.
LFT APPROACH IN THE PATH GOAL
THEORY
A holistic approach to the problem of the leader–follower dynamic in the path-goal theory is needed. Th e leader in the holistic approach (mutual infl uence) infl uences followers not only through his or her change of leader- ship styles or behavior (directive, supportive, participa- tive, and achievement oriented), but also with his or her change of functions by making leadership a shared experience with the followers. Th e outcome of the shared leadership and followership may be an attitudinal and behavioral change, improvement in performance, and willingness to cooperate with the leader. As for the organizational goals and objectives, the follower will improve his or her performance and buy into the vision of the organization if the leader is able and willing to share leadership roles and responsibilities with the followers in the goal-setting and decision-making processes. Th us the LFT approach fosters a change of the static paradigm into a functional paradigm of leadership and followership. In certain situations the leader may choose to function as a follower and the follower to function as a leader toward personal and organizational empowerment.
LFT APPROACH IN THE LEADER MEMBER
EXCHANGE LMX THEORY
Using the LFT approach in the LMX theory, the leader may function as both leader and follower with the members of both the in-group and the out-group in order to cultivate shared leadership and followership, thus attaining leadership and followership effi ciency at personal and organizational levels. Th e three phases of the leader–member dyad within the LMX theory (the stranger phase, the acquaintance phase, and the part- ner phase) may become a three-phase developmental process for each group member between the positional leaders and followers if the LFT approach is imple- mented. Th e latter may create a synergistic environment and mutually empowering relationship for all members of the organization, resulting in personal and organiza- tional betterment, eff ectiveness, and productivity.
On the other hand, the discriminative character of the LMX theory may be improved (in-group and
14 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
then the leader–follower dyad may be more inclu- sive by leaving no room for mere individualistic, top- down, and autocratic leadership (Hollander, 2009). This is because the shared leadership is realized in (a) leader–follower relationships, when dynamic rela- tionships are unleashed between leaders and followers, and (b) through functional trades from leading to fol- lowing and from following to leading.
LFT APPROACH IN SERVANT
LEADERSHIP
Th e LFT approach fi ts the servant leadership philosophy, because both bring the two roles, servant [follower] and leader, together harmoniously in one person to create a new type of leadership: follower–leader. Although Greenleaf (1977) seems hesitant in using the term fol- lower in reference to servant, the concept is present in his approach, because servants are mostly associated with followers. Th us servant leadership can be translated as “follower leadership.” In other words, this is a leadership of followers, which opens a new horizon for followers to lead and the leaders to follow. One leads through fol- lowing, and such a follower can become an inspirational leader, because the two roles are interchangeable— the leader becomes a follower and the follower becomes a leader. Greenleaf (1977) rightly calls this fusion a “dangerous creation.” It is dangerous and unusual because leaders are expected to serve rather than to be served, and servants are expected to lead. In servant leadership one may not always be viewed as a leader and the other as a follower, but rather see it as an exchange- able function of leading and following.
LFT APPROACH IN THE
PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH
If the LFT approach is used in the psychodynamic approach, the research may shift to a new dimension: an analysis of psychological characteristics of leaders who become followers and of followers who decide to become leaders. A question then arises: What are the patterns of behaviors and psychological consequences of the functional exchange between leadership and followership? Such an inquiry perhaps has not yet been fully undertaken. By reinforcing the concept of no better or worse personalities of the psychodynamic research, both behavioral functions (leading and
a charismatic leader but also a charismatic follower. In other words, in a charismatic leader one may fi nd a char- ismatic follower, or vice versa. Th us, it seems necessary to study charismatic leadership from functional perspectives without necessarily viewing the two functions as two separate individuals. Moreover, the charismatic aspect of followership in relation to leadership may address some of the dark sides of charismatic leadership (use and abuse of power and authority, unquestionable authority, top-down leadership, infallibility and infl exibility of the leader, psychological manipulation, and others) and off er a mutually empowering model of reciprocal relationships between charismatic leaders and followers toward mutual inspiration and encouragement. Th e world needs both charismatic leaders as well as charismatic followers.
LFT APPROACH IN TEAM LEADERSHIP
Although team leadership is one of the few theories that advocates the concept of sharing leadership functions, the emphasis of team leadership is more on leading than following, where the members of the team strive to lead. Th e LFT approach for team leadership theory allows viewing the two functions, leading and following, as developmental possibilities for both leaders and follow- ers within the leadership team. In this case, the issue is not who leads and who follows, but rather how to lead and how to follow through a free expression of one’s natural abilities, desires, and acquired skills for leading and following. After all, one is free to choose to lead and follow as the outcome of one’s inner condition or outer needs. Not everyone has a natural desire to lead. On the other hand, it can be assumed that when every- one leads, no one follows, or, when everyone follows, no one leads. Th us, it is crucially important that leaders within the team learn to follow and followers learn to lead through the functional trade (LFT approach) in order to maximize group eff ectiveness.
LFT APPROACH IN SHARED, COLLECTIVE,
AND DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP
Th e LFT approach may be easily implemented in shared leadership, if the focus is shifted from leaders to lead- ers–followers. In this case, leaders and followers will not only share their leadership roles but also their fol- lowership roles. If the underlying assumption for shared leadership is a collectivistic approach to leadership,
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 15
may be realized either by the same person or by multi- ple individuals performing leadership and followership functions interchangeably or simultaneously, much like in a tango dance (Chaleff , 2012).
LFT APPROACH IN THE INTERCULTURAL
LEADERSHIP
It is crucial to learn and acknowledge cultural diff er- ences and how those diff erences aff ect one’s perception of leadership and followership in intercultural contexts. Th us, the LFT approach in the intercultural leadership research adds the followership variable into the study of leadership to fi nd ways in which leader–follower rela- tionships may enhance interpersonal as well as intercul- tural eff ectiveness in global organizations.
LFT APPROACH AND THE ROLE OF
GENDER
Anthropologically, the gender diff erence seems to have no eff ect on the LFT process, because leadership and fol- lowership functions are gender neutral. In other words, regardless of one’s gender, one may function as a leader or as a follower based on one’s personal preferences and strengths. However, culturally, the gender role may have a significant impact on the applicability of the LFT approach. For instance, in masculine cultures, where male and female roles are strictly diff erentiated, the LFT approach may be resisted or rejected by that culture.
LFT APPROACH AND ACCOUNTABILIT Y
When the roles and functions are traded or exchanged between leaders and followers, the accountability struc- ture must be in place at all times. Th is may be possible if one moves from a positional to a relational paradigm of accountability. In the positional paradigm, it is the follower who is expected to be accountable to her or his leader in most cases. In the relational paradigm, however, the accountability becomes mutual. In one situation the person in a leadership role playing a leader role will hold his or her followers accountable and in another will hold leaders accountable while taking the role of a follower.
In summary, through the LFT approach one may view leadership and followership as processes that occur in relationships and that leading–following functions are exchangeable behaviors in human relationships
following) are acceptable and cannot be viewed as better or worse. Th ey are just diff erent functions sub- ject to a constant exchange in individual and corporate life as acceptable and necessary functions for human coexistence.
LFT APPROACH IN LEADERSHIP ETHICS
Th e LFT approach presupposes that leadership ethics be perceived as an inseparable part of followership ethics. Ethical issues may arise when there is a leader, a follower, and a situation. In other words, ethics is the result of the communication and the relationship between the leader and the follower and the latter’s response to either the former’s behavior or action. It seems unethical to ignore followership ethics in rela- tion to leaders and followers themselves. To study the leader’s ethical behavior apart from the follower’s response is detriment to both parties involved. Th us it is essential that the follower’s ethical understanding and behavior be taken into account in conjunction with the leader’s ethical understanding and behavior. Leaders and followers are responsible not only for their own behaviors but also for those of corporate ethics as a result of the leader–follower interaction and exchange.
LFT APPROACH IN AUTHENTIC
LEADERSHIP
The LFT approach in authentic leadership will guar- antee authenticity in leading and following in vari- ous situations. “Be yourself ” then will mean that if a person in a follower role has a talent or a skill to lead, then he or she should be encouraged to lead out of his or her authentic self. Moreover, as soon as the para- digm is shifted from the leader to the leader–follower dynamic, then one’s intrapersonal perspective changes and broadens toward his or her self-knowledge, self- regulation, and self-concept as a leader as well as a fol- lower (Hannum, 2007; Stech, 2008).
Regarding the interpersonal processes between lead- ers and followers, the LFT approach expands the hori- zon for creativity and collaboration between leaders and follower in their authentic dyadic relationships. Furthermore, it also increases the potential for func- tional exchange, mutual empowerment, and devel- opment (Dixon & Westbrook, 2003). In this case, authenticity, as a human quality, behavior, and skill,
16 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
exchange, a persuading and modeling style may be used for the implementation of the LFT approach.
2. Apprehensive Avoidance = Low competency, Low willingness. Leaders and followers may hesitate and avoid the LFT approach. Th us it may be infeasible.
Response-change: When the leader and the fol- lower are incompetent and unwilling for a func- tional exchange, a teaching and encouraging development style may be used for the implemen- tation of the LFT approach.
3. Inquisitive Avoidance = Low competency, High willingness. Leaders and followers may express interest but avoid the LFT approach. Th us it may be feasible.
Response-change: When the leader or the follower is incompetent but willing for a functional exchange, a teaching and participatory development style may be used for the implementation of the LFT approach.
4. Enthusiastic Engagement = High competency, High willingness. Leaders and followers may be enthusiastic and engaged in the LFT approach. Th us it is feasible.
Response-change: When the leader or the follower is competent and willing for a functional exchange, an empowering and delegating development style may be used for the implementation of the LFT approach.
Summary: (1) When the leader–follower willingness is high, it is
more likely that the LFT approach will be feasible. Conversely, when the leader–follower willingness is low, it is more likely that the LFT approach will be infeasible.
(2) When the leader–follower competency is high, it is more likely that the LFT approach will be feasible. Conversely, when the leader–follower competency is low, it is more likely that the LFT approach will be infeasible.
Conclusion and Recommendation Leadership and followership as behavioral functions ought to be treated mutually and studied simultane- ously. Th e theoretical foundation of followership should be studied along with the foundations of leadership in order to understand how the relationships between the
regardless of one’s gender, ethnic, cultural, or social identity. Moreover, leaders and followers may trade their functions from leader to follower and from fol- lower to leader if they are willing and capable in order to foster interpersonal relationships, develop their intrapersonal perspectives, and maximize mutual eff ec- tiveness across cultural, ethnic, and gender diversities. Th us, the study on followership in relation to leader- ship is not an option but a necessity.
Feasibility of the LFT Approach Two major limitations of the LFT approach seem evident in the areas of willingness and competencies. First, some leaders or followers may not be willing to exchange their roles and functions due to their personal preferences. Second, the leaders and followers may feel incompetent for the role and functional exchange. For instance, it would seem unrealistic or perhaps naïve to assume that an inexperienced leader, who lacks knowl- edge, skills, and expertise, may increase his or her eff ec- tiveness by implementing the LFT approach. Moreover, in order for true dialogue and mutual learning to take place between leaders and followers, the same benefi ts and privileges, such as decision-making power, com- pensation, and status, must apply to both parties. Th ere seem to be four possible variations of feasibility of the LFT approach. Th e quadrants in Figure 1 provide fea- sibility stages for the applicability and implementation of the LFT approach. 1. Resistant Avoidance = High competency, Low will-
ingness. Leaders and followers may resist but not avoid the LFT approach. Th us it may be infeasible.
Response-change: When the leader and the fol- lower are competent but unwilling for a functional
Figure 1. The feasibility quadrants of the LFT approach Lo
w C
om p
et en
cy H
ig h
1 Resistant
Avoidance
4 Enthusiastic Engagement
2 Apprehensive
Avoidance
3 Inquisitive Avoidance
Low Willingness High
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 17
correspondingly influences the leader. Thus the question always remains, “Who is influencing whom and who is leading whom?”
6. Th e relational and task behaviors are characteristic of both leaders and followers: (1) leader–follower, (2) follower–leader, and (3) follower–follower. Leadership and followership are situational. Individuals may constantly exchange their leader- ship and followership functions. Th e situational exchange must be geared toward leader–follower mutual empowerment, eff ectiveness, and growth.
7. In organizational settings, leadership and follower- ship have traditionally been perceived as separate roles. However, both roles may be exchangeable based on one’s giftedness, behavioral preference, expertise, and situational needs. Th us organiza- tional eff ectiveness may be maximized if leaders and followers trade their functions, roles, and responsibilities toward developing leader–follower skills through mutually empowering synergetic relationships.
8. Th e LFT approach is based on the mutual infl u- ence through both (1) change of leadership style or behavior and (2) change of functions in order to make leadership and followership a shared experience.
9. The skills, inner dispositions, and followership qualities do not come naturally. If this assump- tion were correct, then we would have more than one Leo Tolstoy against social injustice and court violence in Czarist Russia; Mahatma Gandhi against British colonialism in India; Martin Luther King, Jr. against segregation, discrimination, and racism in the United States; or more than one Archbishop Desmond Tutu against apartheid in South Africa. Th us followership along with leadership must be taught and developed in both leaders and fol- lowers from educational institutions to work environments.
10. If human behavioral functions, such as leading and following, are contingent upon or shaped by the cultural characteristics, then these behavioral functions must be studied from leader–follower perspective without falsely separating them into two independent functions.
two dependent variables work. Nearly every relation- ship incorporates leadership and followership directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Both func- tions are vital components of human interactions. Th us societies need eff ective followers no less than they need eff ective leaders. As Bennis puts it: “In many ways, great followership is harder than leadership. It has more dan- gers and fewer rewards, and it must routinely be exer- cised with much more subtlety. But great followership has never been more important.”6 Finally, more research and study is needed in the area of leadership and fol- lowership as one discipline (Riggio et al., 2008).
Th e following summary of conclusions and recom- mendations is made from this theoretical article: 1. Human beings are born with abilities to lead
and follow (organic leadership and followership). Leaders and followers share common humanity with their unique personalities and characteristics. Subsequently both are valuable and useful human behavioral functions.
2. In reality, one cannot claim that he or she is a leader or a follower at all times and in all circumstances. Th us the concepts of a “leader” or a “follower” as nouns and separate human identities do not exist and seem rather myth. Th us the nonstatic para- digm of the LFT approach to “leading” and “fol- lowing” as verbs seems more natural and authentic to every individual regardless of their social status.
3. Leadership and followership traits and skills are valuable human functions and cannot indepen- dently exist. Contingent upon their preferences and circumstances, some people develop leadership skills whereas others develop followership skills. Both skills and abilities are attainable through edu- cation and thus deserve attention.
4. Leadership and followership are not static concepts or behavioral functions. In one situation a person may function as a leader and in another as a fol- lower, or both.
5. Leadership and followership cannot occur in a vacuum because they are defined by action and behavior in a particular context. They require relationship, which involves influence. Infl uence, on the other hand, is always mutual. As the leader infl uences the follower, the follower
18 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
need for a holistic understanding of how one’s intrap- ersonal processes and interpersonal relationships aff ect his or her leadership and followership behavior. For this reason, further research is necessary to understand one’s internal and external shifts that may cause one to act as a leader in one situation or act as a follower in another. Th is approach will perhaps facilitate the pro- cess of developing followership–leadership skills toward holistic personal and group eff ectiveness. Additionally, a further study may be necessary to understand how individuals and organizations may develop competen- cies and a willingness to implement the LFT approach by moving from the resistant quadrant (high compe- tency, low willingness) to the enthusiastic quadrant (high competency, high willingness), from the appre- hensive (low competency, low willingness) to the enthu- siastic, and from the acquisitive (low competency, high willingness) to the enthusiastic quadrant as the highest personal and organizational goal.
Leadership–Followership as Functions and Roles:
Community and Organizational Dimensions. Is it too optimistic or naïve to think that we may see more and more organizations function like a tango dance, where the leader–follower relationships, influences, and decisions are made mutually, harmoniously, and interchangeably? On the other hand, can we foresee a workplace where its members shift their leadership and followership functions and roles based on their personal preferences, strengths, competencies, and expertise toward personal eff ectiveness and group productivity?7 To answer these and other related questions, the LFT approach needs to be empirically tested to determine its validity in global work environments and communities across diverse cultural and economic systems.
Endnotes 1Th e static understanding of leadership is defi ned in the cur- rent article as static functions and roles leaders and followers play in a community or an organizational context, where leaders always remain leaders and followers always remain followers. Conversely, the nonstatic or organic understanding of leadership presupposes functional and role exchange, where leaders and followers organically trade or exchange their functions and roles in various situations based on their personal prefer- ences and sets of skills.
11. Th e LFT approach may not be feasible for all indi- viduals or circumstances. Individuals may not desire to exchange their leadership or follower- ship roles or possess the necessary competencies for functional exchange. Th us in order for the LFT approach to be successful on personal and organiza- tional levels, one must acquire disposition of high moral conscience and competency for high perfor- mance to be able to (1) acknowledge the reciprocal benefi ts of the LFT approach for the participants, (2) appreciate LFT’s participatory inclusiveness in human performances, and (3) recognize its poten- tial to treat fellow humans with respect regardless of their leadership or followership functions or roles in society or organizations.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER
STUDY AND RESEARCH
Th ree recommendations are proposed here for further study and research in the areas of (1) scholarship (how to conduct further research and study on leadership– followership as one academic discipline), (2) a shift in focus from a leader to a leader–follower paradigm (intra- personal and interpersonal dimensions), and (3) making an eff ort to apply the LFT approach to community and organizational settings, where members of the group are able to organically lead and follow by trading leadership and followership functions and roles for the benefi t of each other and the community or organization.
Integrative Scholarship. In the last 30 years or more the followership literature emerged in leadership stud- ies. Rather than building another pyramid of “follower- ship literature” next to the “leadership literature,” as a reaction to the industrial or postindustrial leadership failures and abuse, it is time to study leadership and fol- lowership together, as “the two sides of the one coin.”
Leadership–Followership: Intrapersonal and
Interpersonal Dimensions. Th e static concept of lead- ership and followership (the leader is always viewed as a leader and the follower always remains a follower) is unreal and unnatural. Each individual, regardless of his or her function, role, or position, follows in one situation and leads in another, or leads and follows at the same time. Th us there seems to be an urgent
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 19
has resulted in the followers’ personal growth and commit- ment to members of the organization, its vision, as well as organizational eff ectiveness and success.
Th e LFT approach works well in my relationships with my wife. Coming from a male dominating and masculine society, I have learned to recognize the leadership and follow- ership traits that my wife has. Today, I am not the only leader of the family (although my culture and society has given me that static role); we both are. So, organically in one situation I lead and my wife follows, whereas in another situation she leads and I follow.
Moreover, the LFT approach caused a paradigm shift in my worldview and has helped me to become a better parent. Th e moment I gave away my own ego-centeredness and con- trolling addiction to leadership, parenting became an enjoy- able adventure. Today, my wife and I are open to the ideas, suggestions, roles, and responsibilities our daughter and son play or the perspectives they bring into our family. Th ey are a part of the discussion and the decision-making processes, which allows them to lead or set the rules and at the same time to follow the mutually established family rules. Th ey call this relationship “fair.”
The LFT approach has transformed my own teaching, scholarship, and community service. I have learned to value people regardless of their social status or identity, leader or follower, rich or poor, educated or uneducated. As a result, people seem more authentic and trusting. In the area of teaching, I intentionally seek advice and feedback from my own students and often share my leadership roles and responsibilities with them. For instance, my students take a part in group evaluations and grading each other’s works. They have freedom to select certain reading assignments within the subject matter that best fi t their own intellectual needs. I make decisions on activities, fi eld trips, or travel with my students. As a result, they feel empowered, valued, and appreciated. In my scholarship, the LFT approach taught me to begin with followership. I follow people’s advice, edi- tors’ counsel, reviewers’ critiques for publications, and seek feedback from my colleagues. At the end, I benefi t much by gaining wisdom and knowledge. In the area of service, the LFT approach helped me to develop followership skills to follow good leaders and refuse to follow toxic leaders. Often, in my courageous followership role, leaders seek my advice and counsel. I enjoy shifting my functions from leading to following and from following to leading as well as trading my roles of leadership and followership with people I live,
2I have conducted a quantitative analysis of the residential leadership programs on the bachelor’s level (53 majors and 17 minors) in the United States to learn whether or not followership has been emphasized in the leadership cur- ricula. Out of 200 entries in the International Leadership Association website (http://www.ila-net.org/Resources/LPD /index2.asp), 70 universities were randomly selected (26 state, 19 private, and 25 faith-affi liated universities) for analysis. Th e result of the analysis indicates that none of the 70 uni- versities has a single course on followership or mentions fol- lowership in their course descriptions or program outcomes. 3For the James MacGregor Burns quotation, see the back cover of Kellerman (2008). 4To understand where power comes from in the workplace, French and Raven (1959) offer five bases of power: (1) legitimate (a belief that a person has the right to demand compliance and submission from others), (2) reward (one’s ability or power to compensate another for obedience), (3) expert (power that comes from one’s skills and knowledge in a given area of expertise), (4) referent (power that comes from one’s perceived attractiveness, worthiness, and earned respect from others), and (5) coercive (ability to punish oth- ers for noncompliance). 5The LFT approach is different from that of Edwin Hollander’s (2009) “Fair Exchange,” as a social exchange framework. In his Inclusive Leadership, Hollander (2009), much like in major leadership theories analyzed previously, views leadership and followership as static concepts (leader always stays a leader, and the follower stays always a fol- lower): “Th at is the idea of a ‘fair exchange’ in which the leader gives things of value to followers—such as a sense of direction, values, and recognition—and receives other things in return—such as esteem and responsiveness—in their two- way dealings” (Hollander, 2009, p. 39). 6For the Warren Bennis quote, see the back cover of Kellerman (2008). 7Th e LFT approach is the result of my own personal expe- rience and encounter with individuals and organizations (non profi t, for profi t, government, nongovernmental orga- nizations, and education institutions) worldwide in the last 15 years of my teaching and practicing leadership and fol- lowership. It has proven to be one of the most eff ective ways of working with diverse people across cultures for moti- vating them to achieve common organizational goals. My work with young professionals nationally and internationally has shown that a healthy leader–follower trade of functions
20 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared lead- ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1217–1234.
Cavell, D. P. (2007). Leadership or followership: One or both? Healthcare Financial Management, 61(11), 142–144.
Chaleff , I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Rig- gio, I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chaleff , I. (2009). Th e courageous follower (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Chaleff , I. (2012). Leading and following through tango. Coura- geous follower blog: Archive for “video” category. Th e courageous follower. Retrieved from http://www.courageousfollower.net/blog /video/
Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C., & House, R. J. (2007). Culture and leadership across the world: Th e GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. Mahwah, NJ: LEA Publishers.
Ciulla, J. B. (2002). Th e ethics of leadership. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.
Conger, J. A. (1999). Charismatic and transformational leader- ship in organizations: An insider’s perspective on these developing streams of research. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 145–179.
Crosby, B. C., & Bryson, J. M. (2005). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dansereau, F., Graen G. B., & Haga, W. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formal organizations. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 46–78.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. Th e Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.
Deardorff , D. (2009). Th e Sage handbook of intercultural competence. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal, 15(1).
Doob, L. W. (1988). Inevitability: Determinism, fatalism, and des- tiny. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does gender matter? Th e Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459–474.
Evans, M. G. (1970). Th e eff ects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 5, 277–298.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership eff ective- ness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychol- ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press.
work, and associate with. It feels natural, authentic, refresh- ing, and creative.
I have taught leadership-followership and the LFT approach and have been engaged in numerous scholarly dialogues with colleagues and peers in various conferences in the United States, Africa, Asia, Eastern and Western Europe, and Eurasia. I have observed that the LFT approach fi rst made me more accepted by other cultures and traditions due to its follower- ship nonthreatening nature. Second, it makes common sense and people easily relate it to their own experiences. Finally, after so much abuse of leadership power globally, an average cross- cultural person seems to trust a follower more than a leader.
References Avolio, B. J., & Gibbons, T. C. (1988). Developing transfor- mational leaders: A life span approach. In J. A. Conger, R. N. Kanungo, & Associates (Eds.), Charismatic leadership: Th e elusive factor in organizational eff ectiveness (pp. 276–308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. American Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.
Autry, J. A. (2004). The Servant Leader. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: Th e theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14, 50–60.
Bass, B. M. (1981). Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York, NY: Th e Free Press.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leader- ship: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19–31.
Berry, J. W., Segall, M. H., & Kagitcibasi, C. (Eds.) (1997). Hand- book of cross-cultural psychology: Social behavior and applications (Vol. 3). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bjugstad, K., Th ach, E. C., Th ompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 7, 304–319.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). Th e managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Blanchard, K. & Hodges, P. (2003). Th e Servant Leader. Nashville, TN: Th omas Nelson.
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London, UK: Sage.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 21
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2012). Manage- ment of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (10th ed.). Englewood Cliff s, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International diff erences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind, Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hollander, E. P. (1992). Th e essential interdependence of leader- ship and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 71–75.
Hollander, E. P. (1995). Ethical challenges in the leader-follower relationships. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 55–65.
Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: Th e essential leader– follower relationship. New York, NY: Routledge.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader eff ectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–328.
House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: Th e cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). Th e path-goal theory of lead- ership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt & L. Larson (Eds.), Contingency approaches in leadership (pp. 29–55). Carbon- dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: Th e GLOBE study of 62 societies. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
International Leadership Association (2013). Resources: Directory of leadership education programs. http://www.ila-net.org/Resources /LPD/index2.asp
Jung, C. J. (1961). Memories, dreams, and refl ections. New York, NY: Vintage.
Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an eff ective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 52, 90–102.
Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about fol- lowers. Harvard Business Review, 85, 84–91.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kellerman, B. (2012). Th e end of leadership. New York, NY: Harper- Collins.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, 142–148.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership eff ectiveness. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F. E., & Garcia, J. E. (1987). New approaches to leadership: Cognitive resources and organizational performance. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Fisher, B. A. (1985). Leadership as medium: Treating complexity in group communication research. Small Group Research, 16, 167–196.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). Th e bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed)., Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti- tute for Social Research.
Freud, S. (1938). Th e basic writings of Sigmund Freud (A. A. Brill, Ed.). New York, NY: Modern Library.
Friedman, M. S. (2002). Martin Buber: Th e life of dialogue (4th ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 343–372.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authen- tic leadership theory and practice: Origins, eff ects and development. Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
George, B. (2004). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discovering your authen- tic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Goff ee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you? What it takes to be an authentic leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi- ness School 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.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Greenleaf, R. K., Spears, L. C., & Covey, S. R. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hannum, K. (2007). Social identity: Knowing yourself, leading others. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing cultural diff erences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century. Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
22 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 7 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls
Rost, J. C. (2008). Followership: An outmoded concept. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (J-B Warren Ben- nis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2006). Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Scandura, T. A. (1999). Rethinking leader-member exchange: An organizational justice perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 10, 25–40.
Schultz, E., & Lavenda, R. H. (2012). Cultural anthropology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active coproduc- ers: 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.
Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “What’s your story?” A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. Leadership Quar- terly, 16, 395–417.
Stech, E. L (2008). A new leadership-followership paradigm. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of fol- lowership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York, NY: Free Press.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2008). Leadership, fol- lowership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.
Wielkiewicz, R. M., & Stelzner, S. P. ( 2005). An ecological per- spective on leadership theory, research, and practice. Review of General Psychology, 9, 326–341.
Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attri- butes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Th e nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zaleznik, A. (2009). Executive’s guide to understanding people: How Freudian theory can turn good executives into better leaders. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Petros G. Malakyan is Associate Professor & Chair of Leadership Studies at Indiana Wesleyan University. He received a PhD degree in Intercultural Studies with Leadership Concentration from the School of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California, in 1998.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kinlaw, D. C. (1998). Superior teams: What they are and how to develop them. Hampshire, UK: Grove.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? Th e Executive, 5, 48–60.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Credibility: How leaders gain and lose it, why people demand it (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). Th e leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations. San- Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, R. (2006). When cultures collide: Leading across cultures (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta- analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402–410.
Mann, R. D. (1959). A review of the relationship between person- ality and performance in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 241–270.
Morris, S. (2005). Th e only way to go—shared leadership. Indepen- dent Education, 35(3), 30–32.
Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, O. T., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11–35.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Th eory and practice (6th ed.). Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Orwell, G. (1936). Shooting the elephant. From Shooting an ele- phant and other essays. New York, NY: Harcourt.
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the how and whys of leadership. Th ousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Price, T. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cam- bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Price, T. (2008). Leadership ethics: An introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York, NY: Praeger.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff , I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). Th e art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organi- zations (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-fi rst century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
