Complete the following four self-assessments:

Followership13

DESCRIPTION

You cannot have leaders without followers. In the previous chapter, "Inclusive Leadership" (Chapter 12), we focused on inclusive leadership and how leaders can ensure that followers feel a part of the group. In this chapter, we shift the focus to followers and the central role followers play in the leadership process. The process of leading requires the process of following. Leaders and followers together create the leadership relationship, and without an understanding of the process of following, our understanding of leadership is incomplete (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014).

For many people, being a follower and the process offollowership have negative connotations. One reason is that people do not find followership as compelling as leadership. Leaders, rather than followers, have always taken center stage. For example, in school, children are taught early that it is better to be a leader than a follower. In athletics and sports, the praise for performance consistently goes to the leaders, not the team players. When people apply for jobs, they are asked to describe their leadership abilities, not their followership activities. Clearly, it is leadership skills that are applauded by society, not followership skills. It is just simply more intriguing to talk about how leaders use power than to talk about how followers respond to power.

While the interest in examining the active role offollowers was first approached in the 1930s by Follett (1949), groundwork on follower research wasn't estab­ lished until several decades later through the initial works of scholars such as Zaleznik (1965), Kelley (1988), Meindl (1990), and Chaleff (1995). Still, until recently, only a minimal number ofstudies have been published on followership. Traditionally, leadership research has focused on leaders' traits, roles, and behav­ iors because leaders are viewed as the causal agents for organizational change. At the same time, the impact of followers on organizational outcomes has not been generally addressed. Researchers often conceptualize leadership as a leader­ centric process, emphasizing the role of the leader rather than the role of the

352

follower. Furthermore, little research has conceptualized leadership as a shared process involving the interdependence between leaders and followers in a shared relationship. Even though followers share in the overall leadership process, the nature of their role has not been scrutinized. In effect, followership has rarely been studied as a central variable in the leadership process.

There are indications that this is beginning to change. In a 2017 New York Times article, Susan Cain (author of Quiet: The Power ofIntroverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking [2012]) decries the glorification of leadership skills in college admissions and curricula and argues that the world needs more followers. It needs team players, people called to service, and individuals committed to something outside of themselves. Followership is also receiv­ ing more attention now because of three major works devoted exclusively to the process of following: The Art ofFollowers hip: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations by Riggio, Chaleff, and Lipman-Blumen (2008), Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders by Kellerman (2008); and Followership: What Is It and Why Do People Follow? by Lapierre and Carsten (2014). Collectively, these books have put the spotlight on followership and helped to establish it as a legitimate and significant area of study.

In this chapter, we examine followership and how it is related to the leadership process. First, we define followers and followership and discuss the implications of these definitions. Second, we discuss selected typologies offollowership that illus­ trate different styles used by followers. Next, we explore a formal theory of fol­ lowership that has been set forth by Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) and new perspectives on followership suggested by Carsten, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014). Last, we explore types ofineffective followership that contribute to destructive leadership.

Followership Defined

It is challenging to define fallowership because the term conjures up different meanings for people, and the idea of being a follower is positive for some and negative for others. For example, followership is seen as valuable in military situ­ ations when soldiers follow orders from a platoon leader to complete a mission, or when passengers boarding a plane follow the boarding agent's instructions. In contrast, however, followership is thought of negatively in such situations as when people follow a cult leader such as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, or when members of a college fraternity take it upon themselves to conduct life-threatening hazing rituals with new members. Clearly, followership can be positive or negative, and it plays out differently in different settings.

What is followership? Followership is aprocess whereby an individual or individu­ als accept the influence efothers to accomplish a common goal. F ollowership involves a power differential between the follower and the leader. Typically, followers comply with the directions and wishes ofleaders-they defer to leaders' power.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 353

Followership also has an ethical dimension. Like leadership, followership is not amoral; that is, it is not a process that is morally neutral. Followership carries with it a responsibility to consider the morality of one's actions and the rightness or wrongness of the outcomes of what one does as a follower. Followers and lead­ ers work together to achieve common goals, and both share a moral obligation regarding those goals. There are ethical consequences to followership and to what followers do because the character and behavior of followers has an impact on leaders and on organizational outcomes.

Role-Based and Relational-Based Perspectives

Followership can be divided into two broad categories: role-based and relational­ based (Uhl-Bien et al.,2014).

The role-based perspective focuses on followers in regard to the typical roles or behaviors they exhibit while occupying a formal or informal position within a hierarchical system. For example, in a staff planning meeting, some people are very helpful to the group because they bring energy and offer insightful sugges­ tions regarding how the group might proceed. Their role as engaged followers, in this case, has a positive impact on the meeting and its outcomes. Emphasis in the role-based approach is on the roles and styles of followers and how their behaviors affect the leader and organizational outcomes.

The relational-based approach to followership is quite different from the role­ based approach. To understand the relational-based approach it is helpful to understand social constructivism. Social constructivism is a sociological theory that argues that people create meaning about their reality as they interact with each other. For example, a fitness instructor and an individual in an exercise class negotiate with each other about the kind of influence the instructor will have and the amount of influence the individual will accept. From a social constructivist perspective, followership is co-created by the leader and follower in a given situ­ ation. The meaning of followership emerges from the communication between leaders and followers and stresses the interplay between following and leading. Rather than focusing on roles, it focuses on the interpersonal process and one person's attempt to influence and the other person's response to these influence attempts. Leadership occurs within the interpersonal context ofpeople exerting influence and responding to those influence attempts. In the relational-based approach, followership is tied to interpersonal behaviors rather than to specific roles (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, &McGregor, 2010; DeRue &Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).

Typologies of Followership

How can we describe followers' roles? Trying to do just that has been the primary focus of much of the existing followership research. As there are many types

354 LEADERSHIP

TABLE 1:s.1 Typologies of Followership

I I

I Zaleznik (1965) I Kelley (1992)

Kellerman I

I Chaleff (1995) (2008) I

Withdrawn Alienated Resource Isolate

Masochistic Passive Individualist Bystander

Compulsive Conformist Implementer Participant

Impulsive Pragmatist · Partner Activist

Exemplary Diehard

Source: Adapted from "Conceptualizing followership: A review of the literature," by B. Crossman and J. Crossman, 2011, Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.

of leaders, so, too, are there many types of followers (Table 13.1). Grouping followers' roles into distinguishable categories to create an accurate classifica­ tion system, or typology, of follower behaviors has been undertaken by several researchers. A typology enhances our understanding of the broader area of fol­ lowership by breaking it down into smaller pieces. In this case, these pieces are different types of follower roles observed in various settings.

The Zaleznik Typology ·

The first typology offollowers was provided by Zaleznik ( 1965) and was intended to help leaders understand followers and also to help followers understand and become leaders. In an article published in the Harvard Business Review, Zaleznik created a matrix that displayed followers' behaviors along two axes: dominance-­ submission and activity-passivity (Figure 13.1). The vertical axis represents a range of followers from those who want to control their leaders (i.e., be domi­ nant) to those who want to be controlled by their leaders (i.e., be submissive). The horizontal axis represents a range of followers from those who want to initiate and be involved to those who sit back and withdraw. Based on the two axes, the model identifies four types of followers: withdrawn (submissive/pas­ sive), masochistic (submissive/active), compulsive (highly dominant/passive), and impulsive (highly dominant/active). Because Zaleznik was trained in psychoana­ lytic theory, these follower types are based on psychological concepts. Zaleznik was interested in explaining the communication breakdowns between authority figures and subordinates, in particular the dynamics ofsubordinacy conflicts. The follower types illustrated in Figure 13.1 exist as a result offollowers' responses to inner tensions regarding authority. These tensions may be unconscious but can often come to the surface and influence the communication in leader-follower relationships.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 355

FIGURE 13 .1 Za leznik Follower Typology

Dominance (Con trolling)

Compulsive Impulsive

Passivity -------+-------- Activity

Withdrawn Masochistic

Submission (Being Controlled)

,. u .E Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynam ics of subordinacy, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun.

The Kelley Typology

Kelley's (1992) typology (Figure 13.2) is currently the most recognized follow­ ership typology. Kelley believes followers are enormously valuable to organiza­ tions and that the power of followers often goes unrecognized. He stresses the importance of studying followers in the leadership process and gave impetus to the development of the field of followership. While Zaleznik ( 1965) focused on the personal aspects of followers, Kelley emphasizes the motivations of fol­ lowers and follower behaviors. In his efforts to give followership equal billing to leadership, Kelley examined those aspects offollowers that account for exemplary followers hip.

Kelley sorted followers' styles on two axes: independent critical thinking­ dependent uncritical thinking and active-passive. These dimensions resulted in five follower role types:

• passive followers (sometimes pejoratively called "sheep"), who look to the leader for direction and motivation,

• conformist followers, who are "yes people"-always on the leader's side but still looking to the leader for direction and guidance,

• alienated followers, who think for themselves and exhibit a lot of negative energy,

356 LEADERSHIP

FIGURE 13.2 Kelley Follower Typology

Independent, Critical Thinking

Alienated Exemplary Followers Followers

Passive ---- - PragmatiSt - -===- Active Followers

Passive Conformist FollowersFollowers

Dependent, Uncritical Thinking

Source: Based on excerpts from Kelley, Robert. E. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves. New York: Doubleday.

• pragmatist followers, who are "fence-sitters" who support the status quo but do not get on board until others do, and

• exemplary followers (sometimes called "star"followers), who are active and positive and offer independent constructive criticism.

Based on his observations, Kelley (1988, 2008) asserts that effective follow­ ers share the same indispensible qualities: (1) They self-manage and think for themselves, exercise control and independence, and work without supervision; (2) they show strong commitment to organizational goals (i.e., something outside themselves) as well as their own personal goals; (3) they build their competence and master job skills; and (4) they are credible, ethical, and coura­ geous. Rather than framing followership in a negative light, Kelley underscores the positive dimensions offollowing.

The Chaleff Typology

Chaleff (1995, 2008, 2009) developed a typology to amplify the significance of the role of followers in the leadership process (Table 13 .1). He developed his typology as a result of a defining moment in his formative years when he became aware of the horrors of the World War II Holocaust that killed more than 6 million European Jews. Chaleff felt a moral imperative to seek answers

CHA PTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 357

FIGURE 13.3 Leader- Follower Interaction

r Common

Source.· Adapted from "Creating new ways of following" by I. Chaleff, in RE. Riggio, I. Chaleff, and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Fo!!owership· How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (p. 71), 2008. Permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republished with permission of John Wiley & Sons.

as to why people followed German leader Adolf Hitler, a purveyor of hate and death. What could be done to prevent this from happening again? How could followers be emboldened to help leaders use their power appropriately and act to keep leaders from abusing their power?

Rather than serving leaders, Chaleff argues that followers serve a common pur­ pose along with leaders (Figure 13.3) and that both leaders and followers work to achieve common outcomes. Chaleff states that followers need to take a more proactive role that brings it into parity with the leader's role. He sought to make followers more responsible, to change their own internal estimates of their abilities to influence others, and to help followers feel a greater sense of agency.

To achieve equal influence with leaders, Chaleff emphasizes that followers need to be courageous. His approach is a prescriptive one; that is, it advocates how followers ought to behave. According to Chaleff, followers need the courage to

a. assume responsibility for the common purpose,

b. support the leader and the organization,

c. constructively challenge the leader if the common purpose or integrity of the group is being threatened,

d. champion the need for change when necessary, and

e. take a moral stand that is different from the leader's to prevent ethical abuses.

358 LEADERSHIP

FIGURE 13.4 Chaleff Follower Typology

High Support

PartnerImplementer

Low ___::,_____...i..:::==-=====--- High Challenge Challenge

Resource Individualist

Low Support

Source: Adapted from "Creating new ways of following" by I. Chaleff, in R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, and J. Lipman-Blurnen (Eds.), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (p. 71), 2008; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republished with permission of John Wiley & Sons.

In short, Chaleff proposes that followers should be morally strong and work to do the right thing when facing the multiplicity of challenges that leaders place upon them.

Chaleff created a follower typology (Figure 13.4), which is constructed using two characteristics of courageous followership: the courage to support the leader (vertical axis) and the courage to challenge the leader's behavior and policies (horizontal axis). This typology differentiates four styles of followership:

1. R esource (lower left quadrant), which exhibits low support and low challenge. This describes those followers who do just enough to get by.

2. Indiv idualist (lower right quadrant) , which demonstrates low support and high challenge. Often marginalized by others, i~dividualists speak up and let the leader know where they stand.

3. Implementer (upper left quadrant) , which acts with high support and low challenge. Often valued by the leader, implementers are supportive and get the work done but, on the downside, fail to challenge the leader's goals and values.

4. Partner (upper right quadrant), which shows high support and high challenge. Followers who exhibit this style take responsibility for themselves and for the leader and fully support the leader but are always willing to challenge the leader when necessary.

CHAPTER 13 . FOLLOWERSHIP 359

The Kellerman Typology

Kellerman's (2008) typology of followers was developed from her experience as a political scientist and her observations about followers in different historical contexts. Kellerman argues that the importance ofleaders tends to be overesti­ mated because they generally have more power, authority, and influence, while the importance iffollowers is underestimated. From her perspective, followers are subordinates who are "unleaders," by which she means they have little power, no position of authority, and no special influence.

Kellerman designed a typology that differentiates followers in regard to a single attribute: level efengagement. She suggests a continuum (Figure 13.5), which describes followers on one end as being detached and doing nothing for the leader or the group's goals and followers on the opposite end as being very dedicated and deeply involved with the leader and the group's goals. As shown in the figure, Kellerman's typology identifies five levels of follower engagement and behaviors:

l Isolates are completely unengaged. They are detached and do not care about their leaders. Isolates who do nothing actually strengthen the influence potential of a leader. For example, when an individual feels alienated from the political system and never votes, elected officials end up having more power and freedom to exert their will.

2 Bystanders are observers who do not participate. They are aware of the leader's intentions and actions but deliberately choose to not become involved. In a group situation, a bystander is one who listens to the discussion but, when it is time to make a decision, disengages and declares neutrality .

.1 Participants are partially engaged individuals who are willing to take a stand on issues, either supporting or opposing the leader. For example,

FIGURE 13.s Kellerman Follower Typology

Low High Level LEVELS OF ENGAGEMENT Level

Isolate Bystander Participant Activist Diehard

)Urce From Foilowership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders, by Barbara Kellerman. 2008, Br ig hton, MA: Harvard Business Rev iew Press.

360 LEADERSHIP

participants would be the employees who challenge or support their leader regarding the fairness of their company's new overtime policy.

4. Activists feel strongly about the leader and the leader's policies and are determined to act on their own beliefs. They are change agents. For example, in 2020 after the death of George Floyd, an African American man, at the hands of a white Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer, antiracism activists took to the streets in protest to demand change in police practices. Their protests inspired similar protests across the United States and abroad.

5. Diehards are engaged to the extreme. They are deeply committed to supporting the leader or opposing the leader. Diehards are totally dedicated to their cause, even willing to risk their lives for it. In a small-group setting, diehards are followers who are all-consumed with their own position within the group to the point of forcing the group members to do what they want them to do or forcing the group process to implode. For example, there have been U.S. representatives willing to force the government into economic calamity by refusing to vote to raise the country's debt ceiling in order to force their will on a particular issue, such as increased defense spending or funding for a roads project in their district.

What do these four typologies (i.e., Zaleznik, Kelley, Chaleff, and Kellerman) tell us about followers? What insights or conclusions are suggested by the typologies?

First, these typologies provide a starting point for research. The first step in building theory is to define the phenomenon under observation, and these typologies are that first step to identifying key followership variables. Second, these typologies highlight the multitude of different ways followers have been characterized, from alienated or masochistic to activist or individualist. Third, while the typologies do not differentiate a definitive list of follower types, there are some commonalities among them. Generally, the major followership types are active-engaged, independent-assertive, submissive-compliant, and supportive­ conforming-or, as suggested by Carsten et al. (2014), passive followers, antiau­ thoritarian followers, and proactive followers.

Fourth, the typologies are important because they label individuals engaged in the leadership process. This labeling brings followers to the forefront and gives them more credence for their role in the leadership process. These descriptions can also assist leaders in effectively communicating with followers. By knowing that a follower adheres to a certain type of behavior, the leaders can adapt their style to optimally relate to the role the follower is playing.

Collectively, the typologies of followership provide a beginning point for theory building about followership. Building on these typologies, the next section discusses some of the first attempts to create a theory of followership.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 361

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO FOLLOWERSHIP

What is the phenomenon of followership? Is there a theory that explains it? Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) set out to answer those questions by systematically analyzing the existing followership literature and introducing a broad theory offollowership. They state that followership comprises "character­ istics, behaviors and processes of individuals acting in relation to leaders" (p. 96). In addition, they describe followership as a relationally basedprocess that includes how followers and leaders interact to construct leadership and its outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014, p. 99).

Based on these definitions, Uhl-Bien et al. proposed a formal theory of fol­ lowership. They first identified four constructs (i.e., components or attributes) and variables that comprise the process of followership as shown in Table 13.2.

Followership characteristics refer to the attributes of followers, such as the fol­ lower's traits (e.g., confidence), motivations, and the way an individual perceives what it means to be a follower.

Leadership characteristics refer to the attributes of the leader, such as the leader's power and/or willingness to empower others, the leader's perceptions of follow­ ers, and the leader's affect (i.e., the leader's positive or negative feelings toward

TABLE 13.2 Theoretical Constructs and Variables of Followership

I Followe,sMp Followe,sh;p · I Leade,sMp and Leadership Characteristics Characteristics Behaviors

Followership Outcomes

Follower Traits Leader Power Followership Behaviors

Individual Follower Outcomes

Follower Motivation

Perceptions and Constructions

Leadership Behaviors

Individual Leader Outcomes

Follower Perceptions and Constructions

Leader Affect Relationship Outcomes

Leadership Process Outcomes

Source: From "Followeiship Theory: A Review and Research Agenda," by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.

362 LEADERSHIP

followers). Followership behav iors are the behaviors of individuals who are in the follower role-that is, the extent to which they obey, defer, or resist the leader .. Leadership behaviors are the behaviors of the individuals in the leadership role, such as how the leader influences followers to respond. Finally,followership out­ comes are the results that occur based on the followership process. The outcomes can influence the individual follower, the leader, the relationship between the leader and the follower, and the leadership process. For example, how a leader reacts to a follower, whether a follower receives positive or negative reinforce­ ment from a leader, and whether a follower advances the organizational goals all contribute to followership outcomes.

To explain the possible relationships between the variables and constructs identi­ fied in Table 13.2, the authors proposed two theoretical frameworks: reversing the lens (Figure 13.6) and the leadership co-createdprocess (Figure 13. 7).

Reversing the Lens

Reversing the lens is an approach to followership that addresses followers in a manner opposite ofthe way they have been studied in most prior leadership research. Rather than focusing on how followers areaffectedby leaders, it focuses on howfollowers affect leaders and organizational outcomes. Reversing the lens emphasizes that followers can be change agents. As illustrated in Figure 13.6, this approach addresses (1) the impact offollowers' characteristics on followers'behavior, (2) the impact offollowers' behavior on leaders' perceptions and behavior and the impact ofthe leaders' percep­ tions and behavior on followers'behaviors, and (3) the impact of both followers' behavior and leaders'. perceptions and behavior on followership outcomes.

FIGURE 13.6 Reversing the Lens

Leader Perceptions

and Behavior

Source: From "Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda," by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 363

A hypothetical example of how reversing the lens might work is the research a team is doing on employees and followership in a small, nonprofit organization. In this situation, researchers might be interested in how followers' personal­ ity traits (e.g., introversion-extraversion, dogmatism) relate to how they act at work-that is, their style and work behavior. Researchers might also examine how employees' behavior affects their supervisors' leadership behavior or how the follower- leader relationship affects organizational outcomes. These are just a sample of the research questions that could be addressed. However, notice that the overriding purpose and theme of the study is the impact offollowers on the followership process.

The Leadership Co-Created Process

A second theoretical approach, the leadership co-created process, is shown in Figure 13.7. The name of this approach is almost a misnomer because it implies that it is about leadership rather than followership. However, that is not the case. The leadership co-created process conceptualizes followership as a give-and­ take process where one individual's following behaviors interact with another individual's leading behaviors to create leadership and its resulting outcomes. This approach does not frame followership as role-based or as a lower rung on a hierarchical ladder; rather, it highlights how leadership is co-created through the combined act ofleading and following.

Leading behaviors are influence attempts-that is, using power to have an impact on another. Following behaviors, on the other hand, involve granting power to

FIGURE 13 7 The Leadership Co-Created Process

Leading Behaviors

Leadership

Following Behaviors

S,1L1r , Based on The A llure of Toxic Leaders by J. Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 29; permission conveyed throu g h Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republi shed w it h permission of Oxford University Press.

364 LEADERSHIP

another, complying, or challenging. Figure 13. 7 illustrates that (1) followers and leaders have a mutual influence on each other; (2) leadership occurs as a result of their interaction (i.e., their leading and following); and (3) this resulting process affects outcomes.

The following example illustrates what followership would entail using the lead­ ership co-created process framework in Figure 13.7. Terry Smith is a seasoned high school football coach who paints houses in the summer to supplement his income. One summer, Coach Smith invited one of his players,Jason Long, to work with him as a painter. Coach Smith and Jason worked well together, shar­ ing painting responsibilities, and often finding innovative ways to accomplish their painting jobs more efficiently.

When the summer was over and football practice resumed, however, Coach Smith and Jason ran into problems. At practice, Jason called Coach Smith by his first name, joking with him about their painting jobs, and behaving as a peer rather than a team member. Although Coach Smith liked being on a first-name basis with Jason in the summer, he was concerned that other team members would also start calling him by his first name and he would lose their respect of him as the coach.Jason, on the other hand, felt good about his relationship with Coach Smith and the influence he had with him. He did not want to lose this, which would happen ifhe was forced to resume calling him Coach Smith, like the rest of the players.

To resolve, their issues, Coach Smith and Jason discussed how they would address one another in a series of interactions and decided it was best for Jason to call Smith "Coach Smith" during the academic year to facilitate a positive working relationship between the coach and all of the team members.

In this example, the leadership co-created process can be seen in the different leading and following moves Smith and Jason made. For example, when Coach Smith asked Jason to join him to paint, he was asserting friendly influence which Jason accepted by agreeing to work with Smith. When Jason suggested more efficient methods ofpainting, Smith accepted the influence attempt and deferred to Jason's ideas. By calling each other by their first names while working together, both Jason and Smith assumed that leadership was being shared.

But, when football practice started in the fall and Jason continued to call Smith by his first name instead of "Coach Smith," it was apparent that for Coach Smith to retain his influence with the other players, Jason and Smith needed to reach an agreeable decision on "who was in charge" and "who was to follow." Together they decided what leadership (i.e., coaching) and followership meant in the different contexts. The result was better football practices because all players received what they perceived as equal treatment. In this situation, researchers studying followership would focus on the way Smith's and Jason's leading and

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 365

following behaviors resulted in leadership that in turn resulted in effective or ineffective outcomes.

Because followership research is in the initial stages of development, the two frameworks-reversing the fens and the leadership co-created process-set forth by Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) are initial attempts to create a theory of followership. The frameworks provide a way to conceptualize followership that is useful to researchers in generating further studies to explore the intricacies of followership such as the work we discuss in the next section.

New Perspectives on Followership

The research on followership is continuing to evolve and has resulted in a growing interest in the role followers have in organizations. Work by Carsten et al. (2014) not only helps organizations understand followers but also presents positive aspects of being a follower and suggests several practical perspectives on followership.

Perspective 1: Followers Get the Job Done

In the past, there has been what Meindl (1995) called a "romance ofleadership," which emphasized the importance ofleaders and leadership to the functioning of groups and organizations. There has been less recognition of the importance of followers to getting the job done. When viewed from a less leader-centric perspec­ tive, leadership can be seen as something that occurs among followers as a result of how they interpret leadership. This places less emphasis on the personality of the leader and more on followers' reactions to the leader. It shifts attention away from leaders as the causal agents of organizational change and focuses on how the behavior offollowers affects organizational outcomes. Clearly, followers carry out the mission of the group and the organization; in short, they do the work. They are central to the life of the organization. Going forward, more attention needs to be given to the personalities, cognitive abilities, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving abilities of followers (Carsten et al., 2014 ).

Perspective 2: Followers Work in the Best Interest of the Organization's Mission

Although not true of all followers, proactive followers are committed to achiev­ ing the goals of the group or organization to which they belong. Rather than being passive and blindly obedient to the wishes of the leader, these followers report asserting themselves in ways that are in alignment with the goals of the organization. They put the organization's goals ahead of the leader's goals. The advantage of proactive followers is that they guard against leaders who act in self-serving or unethical ways. For example, if the president of the United States asked a cabinet member to do something that would personally benefit only the president, the cabinet member might refuse, arguing that what they were

366 LEADERSHIP

asked to do was not in the best interests of the country, which they ultimately serve. Followers act as a check and balance on a leader's power, protecting the organization against abuse of this power. Proactive followers keep the organiza­ tion front and center.

Perspective 3: Followers Challenge Leaders

As illustrated in the typologies outlined earlier in the chapter, being engaged, active, and challenging are identifying characteristics of effective followers. But followers who challenge the leader can also help to make an organization run more effectively and successfully. When followers have knowledge about a pro­ cess or procedure ofwhich the leader is unaware, the followers become a strong asset both to the leader and to the organization. They become extra "eyes" to make sure the leader sees the organization from another angle. In addition, fol­ lowers who are proactive and challenge the leader can keep the leader in sync with the overall mission of the organization.

In his work on a conceptual framework of"authentic followership," de Zilwa (2014) focuses on the relational interactions between leaders and followers and how authentic followership impacts leadership processes. De Zilwa argues that followership is proactive-followers make a conscious decision to follow a leader. This challenges the conventional view that a leader's influence is a one-way process. In being authentic, followers are assertive and offer independent, criti­ cal thought. Rather than blindly following a leader, authentic followers develop capacities for cooperation as they focus on organizational effectiveness. They are self-aware and know when to place the needs ofothers above their own, making the leader more effective.

To illustrate this point, consider what happened between Amy Malley, an upper­ level college student, and her professor, Dr. Orville. After Dr. Orville posted the final grades for a capstone course that he taught, Amy came to see him in his office.

"I saw my posted grade, and I want you to know it is wrong," she said. "I know for certain I did very well on the exam and my grade for the course should be an A, but your posting indicates I got a B. Something is wrong with your calculations or the key for the exam."

Dr. Orville, who had taught for 25 years and never made an error in a student's grade, began to shrug off Amy's assertions and tell her she was wrong. She persisted and challenged Dr. Orville because she was confident that her exam grade was incorrect. After much discussion, Dr. Orville offered to let Amy see her exam and the scoring key. To his surprise, her answe~s were correct, but he had marked them wrong. Upon looking further into the matter, Dr. Orville became aware that he had wrongly scored all the students' exams because he had used the incorrect scoring key. Recognizing his error, Dr. Orville immediately changed

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 367

Amy's grade and recalculated the grades for the rest of the class. In this example, Amy's challenging of Dr. Orville's leadership resulted in positive outcomes for all the students and also for the leader.

Perspective 4: Followers Support the Leader

In addition to challenging a leader, it is equally important for followers to support the leader. To advance an organization's mission, it is valuable for leaders when followers validate and affirm the leaders' intentions. Consider what happens in a small-group setting when an individual member attempts to make a point or advance an idea. If someone in the group supports the individual, the group member's idea is heard and gains traction in the group, as does the group member. However, if individual members do not receive support from other group members, they tend to feel disconfirmed and question their role in the group.

For a leader, having a follower who supports you is like having a lieutenant. The lieutenant affirms the leader's ideas to others and in so doing gives the leader's ideas validity. This support strengthens a leader's position in the group and helps advance the leader's goals (Yelsma, 1999). We all need lieutenants, but leaders especially need lieutenants. Support from others is essential to advancing ideas with others. An example of how not having this support can affect outcomes can be seen in the leadership of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer during the COVID-19 crisis, when she gave a mandate to close down businesses in the entire state to slow the spread of the virus but could not muster enough support from the state legislature to keep the measure solidly in place. In this case, not having the support of others in a group was detrimental to the leader.

Perspective 5: Followers Learn From Leaders

A serendipitous outcome of being a follower is that in the process of following you learn about leading. Followership gives individuals the opportunity to view leadership from a position unencumbered from the burdens and responsibilities of being the leader. Followers get to observe what does or does not work for a leader; they can learn which leadership approaches or methods are effective or ineffective and apply this learning if they become leaders.

Consider the training that individuals undergo to become teachers. In most edu­ cation programs, becoming certified as a teacher requires students to do "student teaching" or "supervised teaching," spending a semester working with a certified teacher in a classroom where actual teaching and learning are taking place. The student gets a chance to observe what teachers do and what teaching requires without the full responsibility of being in charge of the students and the edu­ cational outcomes. These student teachers have the opportunity to explore their own competencies and hone their teaching skills. From a followership perspective, the student is playing the follower role but in the process learns the leader role.

368 LEADERSHIP

Followership and Destructive Leaders

Thus far in this chapter, we have focused on effective rather than ineffective followership. For example, we have discussed how followers provide valuable confirmation to leaders and help them accomplish organizational goals. But there is another side to followership in which followers can play unproductive, and even harmful, roles.

Some research suggests there is actually a "dark side" to followership. Schyns, Wisse, and Sanders (2019) found that followers who exhibit the "dark triad" of traits-narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy-are likely to have nega - tive effects on fellow organization members and the organization as a whole. The authors identified "red flag"behaviors ofdark triad followers such as taking credit for others'work, self-promotion, becoming aggressive after feedback, controlling others, manipulation, and bullying. When both leaders and followers have dark triad traits, the outcomes for the other group members and the organization may be even more negative.

Another way followers can have a debilitating impact is through their facilita­ tion of toxic leadership. For example, when followers are passive or submissive, their inaction can contribute to unfettered leadership and unintentionally sup­ port toxic leaders. Furthermore, followers can create contexts that are unhealthy and make it possible for leaders who are not interested in the common good to thrive. When followers act in ways that contribute to the power of destructive leaders and their goals, it can have a debilitating impact on not just the group or organization they serve, but the followers as well.

In The Allure of Toxic Leaders (2005), Jean Lipman-Blumen explored toxic leadership from the perspective of followership. Toxic, or harmful, leaders are leaders who have dysfunctional personal characteristics and engage in numerous destructive behaviors. Yet, people follow them. There are many examples ofsuch leaders in world history, among them Adolf Hitler, whose leadership led to the extermination of6 million Jews in Europe; former Serbian and Yugoslavian pres­ ident Slobodan Milosevic, who ordered the genocide of thousands ofAlbanians and forced deportation of nearly a million, and Enron's Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay, whose conspiracy and fraud cost nearly 20,000 people their jobs and future retirement earnings.

Lipman-Blumen seeks to answer this question: Why do people follow bad lead­ ers? She identifies a series of psychological factors on the part of followers that contribute to harmful leadership and explains why followers can be compliant even with highly destructive leaders. She also examines how some followers become "henchmen'' for toxic leaders, helping and supporting the toxic leader in enacting a destructive agenda.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 369

Her thesis is that unhealthy followership occurs as a result of people's needs to find safety, feel unique, and be included in community, and her work is useful for developing an understanding of why some followership is negative and has counterproductive outcomes.

Among the psychological factors of followers that can foster destructive leader­ ship identified by Lipman-Blumen are our need for reassuring authority figures; our need for security and certainty; our need to feel chosen or special; our need for membership in the human community; our fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death; and our fear ofpowerlessness to challenge a bad leader (Table 13.3).

TABLE 13.3 Psychological Factors and Dysfunctional Leadership

1. Our need for reassuring authority figures

2. Our need for security and certainty

3. Our need to feel chosen or special

4 . Our need for membership in the human community

5. Our fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death

6. Our fear of powerlessness to challenge a bad leader

Source: From "Followership Theory: A Rev iew and Research Agenda," by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.

1. Our Need for Reassuring Authority Figures

As far back as psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud's research in the early 1900s, much has been written about how people deal with authority. When we are very young, we depend on our parents to guide and protect us; but as we mature, we learn to be our own compass/authority/person and make decisions without being dependent on others. However, even as adults, some people still have a high need for authority fig­ ures. They want their leaders to provide guidance and protection like their parents used to. This need can open the door for leaders who use followers for their own ends. When followers' needs for a reassuring authority figure are extremely strong, it makes them vulnerable to following abusive and destructive leaders. For example, a middle school student who plays an instrument may practice considerably more than is necessary just to obtain assurance from the teacher that they are good and worthwhile. In this example, the teacher could take advantage ofthis student's need for validation by having the student do more than is commonly required.

2. Our Need for Security and Certainty

The freedom many people experience when achieving adulthood can bring uncertainty and disruption to their lives. Psychologists who study people's belief

370 LEADERSHIP

systems have found that people have a need for consistency-to keep their beliefs and attitudes balanced. Our drive for certainty means we struggle in contexts where things are disrupted and we do not feel "in charge" of events. This uncertainty and insecurity creates stress from which we seek to find relief. It is in contexts like these that followers are susceptible to the lure of unethical leaders who have power. For example, think about migrant workers who come from Mexico to the United States to work on a large produce farm. The farmer they work for has promised good wages and a place to live. But upon arriving at the farm, the workers find they are required to work in the fields for up to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and the housing provided is substandard. In addition, the farmer charges the workers a high rent for the housing, plus additional fees for providing drinking water in the fields. The workers, who are undocumented immigrants, put up with these conditions because they need the meager income they make and they know that if they complain, the farmer will report them to immigration authorities and they will be deported. The fragile security of working for the farmer outweighs the uncertainty of living in poverty in Mexico.

3. Our Need to Feel Chosen or Special

To explain the need to feel "chosen,"Lipman-Blumen points to historic religious leaders, such as Moses and John Calvin, who emphasized to their people that there were "chosen ones" among them who were special and singled out by a higher authority. Being a part of"the chosen'' means one has "truth" on one's side and those who are the "others" do not. Being chosen means protecting one's unique­ ness and distinguishing oneself from others. While being chosen provides some comfort and even a feeling of immortality, it can motivate some to do battle with others. Being part of the chosen and feeling that they are "right" gives a sense of security to followers, but it does so at the expense of appreciating the humanity of"the others."

Consider, for example, those who adhere to a white supremacist ideology based on the belief that white people are "chosen" and superior to all other races and should have control over people of those other races. White supremacists oppose people of color and those members of non-Christian religions who they believe threaten the "purity" of the white race. Followers ofwhite supremacy's belief in being somehow special reinforces their behaviors, which often involve treating others inhumanely.

4. Our Need for Membership in the Human Community

Psychologist William Schutz (1958) argued that one of humans' strongest interpersonal needs is to know whether they belong to the group. Are we "in" or "out"? Are we included with others and acknowledged as a member of the community or not?

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 371

When groups and organizations function positively, it is healthy for all group members, not detrimental. Group members feel accepted, comfortable, valued, and inspirited. But people's need to be members of the group can be exploited by destructive leaders who take advantage of individuals who are highly dependent on the group for their own personal meaning and purpose. Highly dependent followers may be willing to give up their individuality, beliefs, and integrity just to make sure they can retain their social belonging (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).

Consider the number of disturbing hazing incidents at fraternities or other groups on college campuses that have resulted in the injuries and deaths of new members (pledges) who are willing to endure dangerous rituals because of their high need to belong to the group. Followers can become vulnerable to bad leader­ ship when they are unable to moderate their own personal need for belonging.

5. Our Fear of Ostracism, Isolation, and Social Death

When an individual becomes a part ofand acquires full membership to a group, the individual typically learns and begins to practice the norms ofthe group. Surrounded by the group, followers become comfortable with the group's values, mission, and beliefs. In addition, followers begin to like being a group member and doing what group members do and find the inclusion and community ofthe group comforting.

But being a part of the group also has a downside. This inclusion and community makes it difficult for individuals to break out of the group or dissent if the group's mission or values run counter to their own. Pressure to conform to the group makes it challenging for individuals to disagree with the group or try to get the group to change. When followers act against group norms or bring attention to the negative aspects ofwhat the group is doing (e.g., whistle-blowers), they run a high risk of becoming ostracized and isolated from the group.

For example, imagine being in a group of friends, and several members of your group have started to make fun ofa young man in your class who is on the autism spectrum and often acts awkwardly in social situations. You dislike how they treat this young man and consider their behavior to be bullying. Do you speak up and tell them to stop, knowing that you might be ostracized by the rest ofthe group? Or do you "keep quiet" and maintain your relationships with your friends? Being an ethical follower carries with it the burden ofacting out your individual values even when it can mean social death.

6. Our Fear of Powerlessness to Challenge a Bad Leader

Finally, followers may unintentionally enable destructive leaders because they feel helpless to change them. Once a part of a group, followers often feel pressure to conform to the norms of the group. They find that it is not easy to challenge the leader or go against the leader's plans for the group. Even when a leader acts inap­ propriately or treats others in harmful ways, it is hard for followers to muster the

372 LEADERSHIP

courage to address the leader's behavior. Groups provide security for followers, and the threat of losing this security can make it scary to challenge authority figures. To speak truth to power is a brave act, and followers often feel powerless to express themselves in the face ofauthority. Although being an accepted follower in a group carries with it many benefits, it does not always promote personal agency. After all, who would support you ifyou challenged the leader? For example, imagine what it would be like to be a gay employee in an organization whose leadership is openly prejudiced against individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or trans gender. Would you be likely to express disapproval of the leadership and its policies?

The six psychological needs offollowers outlined by Lipman-Blumen are essen­ tial to understanding the role of followers in fostering destructive leadership. When followers attempt to fulfill these needs, it can create contexts where unethical and destructive leaders are allowed to thrive.

HOW DOES FOLLOWERSHIP WORK?

Unlike established leadership theories such as leader-member exchange theory (Chapter 7) or transformational leadership (Chapter 8) for which there are for­ mulated models, assumptions, and theorems, followership is an area of study still in its infancy. However, it does provide several "takeaways" that have valuable implications for practicing followership.

First, simply discussing followership forces us to elevate its importance and the value of followers. For many years, the role of leaders in the leadership process has been esteemed far above that of followers, as evidenced by the thousands of research studies that exist on leaders and leadership approaches and the very few that have been done on followership. Leadership has been idealized as a central component of organizational behavior. But by focusing on followership, we are forced to engage in a new way of thinking about those who do the work oflead­ ership and to explore the merits of the people who do the work of followership. Leadership does not exist in a vacuum; it needs followers to be operationalized. Followership research highlights the essential role that followers fulfill in every aspect of organizational accomplishments. Why should we focus on follower­ ship? Because it is just as important as leadership.

Second, followership is about how individuals accept the influence of others to reach a common goal. It describes the characteristics and actions of people who have less power than the leader yet are critical components in the leadership pro­ cess. The typologies offollower behaviors discussed in this chapter provide a cri­ terion ofwhat followers typically do in different situations when they are being influenced by a leader. Do they help the leader, or do they fight the leader? Do they make the organization run better or worse? Categorizations offollowers are beneficial because they help us understand the way people act when occupying

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 373

a follower role. To know that a person is a follower is useful, but to know if that follower is dependent-passive or proactive-antiauthoritarian is far more valuable. These categories provide information about how followers act and how a leader can respond accordingly. It also helps leaders know followers' attitudes toward work and the organization and how to best communicate with these followers.

Third, followership research provides a means of understanding why harmful leadership occurs and sometimes goes unrestrained. Followers are interdepen­ dent with leaders in the leadership process-each affects and is affected by the other. When leaders are abusive or unethical, it affects followers. But followers often feel restrained to respond. While they may want to respond to destructive leaders, followers will often become passive and inactive instead. This occurs because they fear losing the security provided by their membership in the group. By understanding their own feelings of powerlessness and need for security and community, followers can more easily identify and confront destructive leaders.

STRENGTHS In this chapter, we trace the development of followership and how it has been conceptualized by researchers over the past 50 years. This research has several strengths.

First, it gives recognition to followership as an integral part of the leadership equation. While some earlier theories ofleadership (e.g., implicit leadership the­ ory [Lord & Maher, 1991] and social identity theory [Tajfel & Turner, 1986]) recognize followers as an element in the leadership process, the most recent literature suggests an approach to followership that elevates it considerably and gives it equal footing with leadership. Further underscoring the complexity and importance of followership, Popper (2014) suggests that followers' attraction to leaders emerges from one of three perspectives: (a) psychoanalytic, where the leader is seen as a protective figure; (b) cognitive-psychological, where the leader is seen as a suitable and psychologically convenient explanation for a complex reality; or (c) social-psychological, in which the leader is a kind of narrative imparting meaning to followers' social identity and sense of self-worth. This emphasis broadens our purview of leadership and suggests that followership will-and should-receive far more attention by researchers and practitioners in the future.

Second, a focus on followership forces a whole new way for people to think about leadership. While there are textbooks on leadership, such as Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphy's Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons ofExperience (2014), that give special attention to followership, current followership research and literature go further and challenge us to take leadership off its pedestal and replace it with followership. It forces us to focus on followers rather than leaders. It looks to

374 LEADERSHIP

answer questions like these: What makes effective followership? How do follow­ ers affect group processes and influence goal accomplishment? How do followers influence leaders? For example, recent research by Carsten, Uhl-Bien, and Huang (2018) found that followers influence their leaders through less voice and upward delegation (for example, passing problems to a manager rather than solving the problem themselves). Leaders were less motivated, and less likely to contribute to goal attainment, when followers were passive and engaged in upward delegation. It makes sense that organizations should pay more attention to training follow­ ers, rather than just leaders, in how to work effectively together.

In addition, new followership literature invites us to view leadership as a co­ constructed process in which followers and leaders share equally. Rather than focusing on the individuals with the power, our thinking needs to shift to embrac­ ing the individuals without the power and the relationship these people make with the leader. The study of followership reminds us that leadership is incom­ plete and cannot be understood without focusing on and understanding the role and dimensions of followers. For example, Pietraszewski (2019) describes how leadership and followership can solve the problem of coordination and cooperation toward goal attainment. He points out that no one follower has all the information needed to solve complex problems alone. Therefore, leaders and followers create a "social marketplace" where leaders propose alternatives, and leaders and followers choose their responses from among them. This marketplace operates on social information processing where leaders and followers propose and evaluate options.

Third, although in its infancy, followership research provides a set of basic pre­ scriptions for what a follower should or should not do to be effective. These prescriptions provide a general blueprint of the types of behaviors that create effective followership. For example, effective followers balance their need for community with their need for self. They act in the best interests of the orga­ nization and challenge the leader when the leader's agenda is self-serving or unethical. Effective followers do not act antiauthoritarian, but collaborate to get the job done. Furthermore, they recognize powerlessness in themselves but do not let this keep them from challenging the leader when necessary. While the followership research has not yet produced elegant theories that explain the intricacies of how followership works, it does provide a set of ideas that have strong practical applications.

Furthermore, research on implicit followership theory suggests that leaders look for both attributes related to performance and attributes such as loyalty and being able to cooperate with others in their view of an "ideal" follower (Carsten et al., 2010). Sy (2010) found six factors constitute the ideal follower: industry, enthusiasm, good citizenship, conformity, insubordination, and incompetence. The first three were valued positively (i.e. followership prototype), and the latter three had negative values (i.e., followership antiprototype). This research also

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 375

found that when followers fit the leader's implicit prototype for being a good follower, they reported that they liked the leader more and had higher relation­ ship quality and trust. Alipour, Mohammed, and Martinez (2017) propose that timing plays an important role in understanding the effects offollowershi p pro­ totypes. Meeting a leader's expectations on deadlines, time perspective, prefer­ ence for multitasking, and pacing style all could depend on whether the follower matches the leader's implicit follower prototype. A follower who is aware of and able to engage in behaviors that are consistent with a leader's ideal follower prototype may be more likely to meet the leader's time-related expectations, reducing coordination problems. Followers who perceive an alignment between their followership prototype and their actual behavior are more likely to view followership as part of their self-concept, claim to be a follower rather than a leader, and be more open to their leader's attempts to shape their social identity as a good follower (Epitropaki, Kark, Mainemelis, & Lord, 2017).

CRITICISMS

In addition to its strengths, the study of followership has certain limitations. First, the methodical research that has been conducted on the process offollow­ ership is in the nascent stage. The absence of advanced research makes it difficult to concretely conceptualize the nature of followership including what defines followers and how followers contribute to the leadership process. Without pre­ cise theories and models offollowership, there can be no clear set ofprinciples or practices about how followership works and the role it plays in groups, organiza­ tions, and the community.

Second, the current followership literature is primarily personal observations and anecdotal. For example, the typologies of followership styles discussed earlier in the chapter (i.e., Zaleznik, Kelley, Chaleff, and Kellerman) are useful cat­ egory systems to differentiate between followers' styles, but the derivation of the typologies is simply the conjectures and hypotheses of a single author. While such descriptive research, including designing different typologies, is a traditional process in the initial phase of theory development, the value and power of our thinking on followership will not advance until followership is fully conceptual­ ized and tested.

Third, the leader-centric orientation that exists in the world may be too ingrained for followership to blossom. For followership to succeed, it will need both lead­ ers and followers to be strong in their roles; followers must serve the purpose of teaching the leader as well as learning from the leader (Chaleff, 1995). And in a leader-centric world, where followership's primary purpose is seen as important only to make leaders leaders (you can't be a leader if no one is following), this evolution may take a very long time to come about. There is a need for research that considers both leader and follower prototypes and how these expectations

376 LEADERSHIP

influence the leadership process and outcomes (Foti, Hansbrough, Epitropaki, & Coyle, 2017). Until we have more research that is dyadic, we will only understand parts of the dynamics that explain effective followership.

Fourth, research on followers has not fully addressed the question "Why follow?" Bastardoz and Van Vugt (2019) critiqued the followership literature from an evolutionary psychology perspective. They assert that followership is puzzling because there has been no explanation for why followers give up autonomy and put their own goals aside to follow leaders. From an evolutionary perspective, followership evolved to address problems in groups such as hunting, gathering, and peacekeeping. Those who do not have the ability to lead are more likely to become followers. Also, followership occurs because of the rewards fol­ lowers receive from a leader, goal alignment, the challenges faced by the group, and the leader's style. The authors argue that evolutionary psychology offers a more robust explanation for followership than current theoretical approaches offered in the literature.

Fifth, there has been little research on when and/or how patterns of follower­ ship are beneficial or detrimental. Followership is not without risks. Qyalitative research conducted by Benson, Hardy, and Eys (2016) found that leaders viewed followership as important because they rely on followers to offer alternative insights on and solutions to problems. However, they also expect followers to support leader directives. In some instances, follower attempts to influence their leaders were "at the wrong time and place" and viewed as disruptive by the leader. This research raises an important caveat for followers: While proactivity is important, followers must be aware and calibrate their influence attempts by taking the situational factors into account.

APPLICATION

"Follow the leader" is an expression familiar to many. Whether it was a way for teachers to avoid confusion and keep peace with their charges or a game played on the playground, "follow the leader" means people need to get in line behind the designated leader and do what the leader tells them to do. Following the leader is about the process of accepting the leader's authority and influence. More importantly, it is about deciding how to respond to what the leader says.

Followership research is about just that: understanding how and why followers respond to leaders. There are several applications of followership research.

First and foremost, the research underscores the importance of followership­ it is as important as leadership. This chapter helps us understand the critical and complex role followers play in regard to leaders. It differentiates common roles followers play, from very active and positive to very inactive and negative.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 377

When applied to real-life leadership situations, knowledge about followers and their roles and behaviors expands our understanding of the major components that contribute to group and organizational success.

In addition, the study of followership has implications for organizational train­ ing and development. Although followership is not currently recognized as a top topic in the training and development field, it is not difficult to see how workshops and training in followership could become very important to orga­ nizations in the near future. Learning about followership could help followers understand themselves, how they function, and how they can best contribute to the goals of the group or organization of which they are members. Clearly, there is demonstrable value in training programs on such topics as "Being an Effective Follower," "Dealing With Destructive Bosses," or "Accepting the Challenges ofFollowership."With the increased attention being given to fol­ lowership research, it is expected that an increase in training programs on followership will result as well.

Furthermore, the information described in this chapter can help leaders to understand followers and how to most effectively work with them. So much of the current leadership literature is about the leader and the leader's behavior; however, this chapter shifts the attention to the follower and why followers act the way they do. Leaders can use this followership information to adjust their style to the needs of followers. For example, if the leader finds that followers are aggressive and disruptive, the information in this chapter suggests that they may have authority issues and are acting out because of their own needs for security. Or, some followers may be quiet and compliant, suggesting they need leadership that assures them that they are a part of the group and encourages them to participate more in the group process. Leaders have tried for years to treat followers as individuals with unique needs, but this chapter goes further and provides leaders with cues for action that are derived directly from the followership literature.

3 7 8 LEADERSHIP

CASE STUDIES

The following three case studies (Cases 13.1, 13.2, and 13.3) present follow­ ership in three different contexts. The first case describes a home health care agency and the unique ways followers contribute to the work of the agency. The second case discusses a renowned rowing team and the way the followers worked together to create cohesiveness and a magical outcome. The last case examines the role of followership in the circumstances that brought down a well-regarded collegiate football program and the university's leadership. At the end of each case, there are questions that will help you to analyze the case utilizing the principles of followership discussed in the chapter.

' Case 1°3.1 BLUEBIRD CARE 1

Robin Martin started Bluebird Care, an in-home health care agency,

20 years ago with a staff of 2.and 5 clients. The agency has grown to a staff of

25 serving 50 clients.

Robin started in elder care as an aide at ·a reputable assisted living facility. She

liked caring for patients and was good at it. When she began running Bluebird

Care, Robin knew all her staff members and their clients. But as the demand for

in-home health care has increased, Bluebird Care has grown as well-hiring more

staff and expanding its service area. For Robin, this means less time with the

company's clients and more time managing her growing agency. She admits she

feels as if she is losing her connections with her clients and staff.

When asked to describe a time when the agency was r~ally running smoothly,

Robin talks about when Bluebird Care had just 10 employees. "This was a good

time for us. Everyone did what they were assigned and did not complain. No one

called in sick; they were very dependable. But, it was different then because we

all lived in the same area and I would see each of our employees every week. On

Tuesdays they had to hand in their time sheets, and every other Thursday they

. stopped to pick up their paycheck. I enjoyed this."

Because the agency's service area is much larger now, encompassing many of

the city's suburbs, Robin seldom sees her employees. Time sheets are emailed

in by employees, and paychecks are sent through the mail or directly deposited

into-employees' bank accounts. Robin says, "Because they never see us, the staff

feels like they can do what they want, and management has nothing to say about

it. It's not the same as when we were smaller."

There is a core of agency staff that Robin does interact with nearly every day. Terry,

a staff member who has been with Robin since the beginning, is Robin's go-to

(Continued)

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 379

(Continued)

person. "I trust her," Robin says. "When she says, 'Robin-we need to do it this way,'

I do what she says. She is always right." Terry is very positive and promotive of the

agency and complimentary of Robin. When other staff members challenge the rules

or procedures of the agency, Terry is the person to whom Robin goes to for advice.

But, Terry also challenges Robin to make Bluebird Care the best agency it can be.

Terry is a direct contrast to Belinda, another employee. A five-year staff member,

Belinda is dogmatic and doesn't like change, yet frequently challenges Robin and

the rules of the agency. Robin describes Belinda as "a bully" and not a team player.

For example, Belinda and Robin had a conflict about a rule in the agency's proce­

dural manual that requires staff to work every other weekend. Belinda argued that

it was unfair to force staff members to work every other weekend and that other

similar agencies don't have such policies. To prove her point, Belinda obtained a

competing agency's manual that supported her position and showed it to Robin.

Robin, who does not like confrontation, was frustrated by Belinda's aggressive

conflict style. Robin brought up the issue about weekends with Terry, and Terry

supported her and the way the policy was written. In the end, Belinda did not

get the policy changed, but both Belinda and Robin are sure there will be more

conflicts to come.

Two other key staff members are Robin 's son, Caleb, who hires and trains most of the

employees, and her son-in-law, James. who answers the phone and does scheduling.

Robin says as a manager James does his work in a quiet, respectful manner and sel­

dom causes problems. In addition to handling all the hiring and training, Robin relies

on Caleb to troubleshoot issues regarding client services. For both James and Caleb,

the job can become stressful because it is their phones that ring when a staff mem­

ber doesn't show up to a client's for work and they have to find someone to fill in.

Caleb also says he is working hard to instill a sense of cohesiveness among the

agency's far-flung staff and to reduce turnover with their millennial-age staff

members. Caleb says while the agency's growth is seen as pos itive, he worries

that the caring philosophy his mother started the agency with is becoming lost.

Questions

1. Who are the followers at Bluebird Care?

2. In what way is followership related to the mission of the agency? Do Robin

and her managers recognize the importance of followership? Explain.

3. Using the roles identified in Chaleff's follower typology (Figure 13.4), what

roles do Terry, Belinda, Caleb, and James play at the agency?

4 . Using the "reversing the lens" framework (Figure 13.6), explain how Caleb

and James's characteristics contribute t o the foll owership outcomes at

Bluebird Care.

380 LEADERSHIP

5. Terry and Robin have a unique relationship in that they both engage in

lead.ing and following. How do you think each of them views leadership

and followership? Discuss.

6. If you were an organizational consultant, what would you suggest to Robin

that could strengthen Bluebird Care? If you were a followership coach,

how would you advise Robin?

Case 13.2 OLYMPIC ROWERS

In the 1930s, rowing was the most popular sport in the country. The sport not

only was physically brutal, but required inexhaustible teamwork. In an eight-man

rowing shell, each member of the team has a role to fulfill based on where he

sits in the boat. The movements of each rower are precisely synchronized with

the movements of the others in the boat. Every rower in the shell must perform

flawlessly with each and every pull of the oar; if one member of the crew is off,

the whole team is off. Any one rower's mistake can throw off the tempo for the

boat's thrust and jeopardize the balance and success of the boat.

In the early 1930s, rowing was a sport dominated by elite East Coast universi­

ties like Cornell, Harvard, and Princeton; However; two West Coast teams, the

University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Washington, had an

intense rivalry not only with the crews from the East Coast but with one another

as well. Al Ulbrickson, the varsity crew coach at the University of Washington,

had watched jealously as the California team ascended to national prominence,

representing the United States in the 1932 Olympics, and was determined that his

University of Washington team would be the one to represent the United States

at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, Germany.

Ulbrickson's program had a number of talented rowers, including those who had

rowed to win the national freshman championships in 1934. Unlike teams from

the East Coast whose members' lives were often marked by privilege and wealth,

many of the boys in the University of Washington program came from poor,

working-class backgrounds. They were the sons of loggers, farmers, and fisher­

men, and gaining a spot on the rowing team would help pay for their college

education. Over the summer b·reak these same boys would work, often in danger­

ous and physically taxing jobs, so they could afford to return to college in the fall.

Finding the ideal makeup of members for a successful rowing team is a complex

process. A great crew is a carefully balanced mix of rowers with different physical

abilities and personalities. According to Brown (2013), "Good crews are blends of personalities: someone to lead the charge, someone to hold something in reserve, someone to pick a fight, someone to make peace, someone to think through,

(Continued)

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 381

(Continued)

someone to charge ahead without thinking.... Even after the right mixture is

found, each oarsman must recognize their place in the fabric of the crew and

accept the others as they are" (pp. 179-180).

To find that magic mix, Ulbrickson experimented with different combinations of

rowers, putting individual rowers on different teams to see how they performed

together. But it was more than just putting the right abilities together; it was

finding the right chemistry. He finally did with a team of boys who "had been

winnowed down by punishing competition, and in the winnowing a kind of

common character had issued forth: they were all skilled, they were all tough,

they were all fiercely determined, but they were also all good-hearted. Every

one of them had come from humble origins or been humbled by the hard times

in which they had grown up.... The challenges they had faced together had

taught them humility-the need to subsume their individual egos for the sake

of the boat as a whole-and humility was the common gateway through which

they were able now to come together" (Brown, 2013, p. 241). One of those

team members said when he stepped into the shell with his new teammates,

he finally felt at home.

This Washington varsity team decimated the competition on the East and West

Coasts, earning a spot on the U,S. Olympic team. At the Berlin Olympics, the

team faced a number of challenges. One of their key oarsmen had fallen seri­

ously ill on the transatlantic voyage to Germany and remained sick through­

out the competition. There were distractions everywhere. But every time the

American boys saw tension or nervousness in one another, they drew closer

together as a group and talked earnestly and seriously to each other. They

draped arms over one another's shoulders and talked through their race plan.

"Each of them knew a defining moment in his life was nearly at hand and no

one wanted to waste it. And none wanted to waste it for the others" (Brown,

2013, p, 326).

The team defeated England in its preliminary heat, and made it to the finals. But

the odds were stacked against them: They were in the worst lane in the final race,

which put them at a two-length disadvantage; they experienced a delayed start

because their coxswain missed the signal that the race had begun; and their sick

oarsman was barely conscious. But they came frnm behind and triumphed, win­

ning Olympic gold.

As Brown (2013) points out, "No other sport demands and rewards the complete

abandonment of the self the way that rowing does. Great crews may have men or

women of exceptional talent or strength; they may have outstanding skills ... but

they have no stars. The team effort-the perfectly synchronized flow of muscle,

oars, boat, and water ... the single, whole, unified, and beautiful symphony that

a crew in motion becomes-is all that matters. Not the individual, not the self"

(pp, 177-178).

382 LEADERSHIP

- - -

Questions

1. In what way is this case about followership? Who were the followers? Who

were the leaders?

2. The coxswain is the crew member who sits in the stern facing the bow,

steers the boat, and coordinates the power and rhythm of the rowers. In

this case, is the coxswain's role more or less important than the roles of

other crew members? Explain your answer.

3. Reversing the lens emphasizes that followers can be change agents-what

was the impact of followers' characteristics on followers' behaviors in this

case? What impact do you think Ulbrickson's perception and behaviors had

on the rowers in his program?

4. How would you describe the impact of both followers and leaders on

followership outcome?

5. In this case, the boys in the boat created a highly cohesive unit. Do you

think highly effective followership always results in cohesiveness?

Defend your answer.

Case 13.3 PENN STATE SEXUAL ABUSE SCANDAL

In the 46 years that Joe Paterno was head football coach of the Penn State

Nittany Lions, he racked up 409 victories and was the most victorious football

coach in the history of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Paterno

called his brand of coaching "The Grand Experiment" because he aimed to prove

that football excellence and academic integrity could coexist. Imbuing his pro­

gram with the motto "Success With Honor," Paterno was as interested in the

moral character of his players as in their physical abilities, a fact borne out by

the program's unusually high graduation rates (Mahler, 2011). Over four decades,

a positive mythology enveloped the program, the university, and Paterno, instill­

ing a fervent Penn State pride in students, faculty, staff, athletes, and fans across

the globe, contributing to Penn State's reputation as one of the most highly

regarded public universities in the United States.

But in 2011, a child sexual abuse scandal involving a former Penn State assistant

football coach caused "The Grand Experiment" to tumble from its high •perch,

bringing down with it not only Coach Paterno, the university's athletic director

Tim Curley, and the storied Penn State football program, but also the university's

president, Graham B. Spanier.

The seeds of the scandal began in 1977 when Penn State's then defensive line

coach Jerry Sandusky established a nonprofit organization called The Second

(Continued)

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 383

(Continued)

Mile that was described as a "group foster home devoted to helping troubled

boys." Sandusky's position and association with Penn State gave the charity

credibility, but The Second Mile ultimately proved to be a cover and conduit

for Sandusky's sexual abuse of boys. It is alleged that through The Second Mile,

Sandusky was able to identify and meet many of the young men who ultimately

became his victims.

Fast-forward to more than 30 years later when, in 2008, the mother of a high

school freshman reported to officials that her son was sexually abused by

Sandusky. Sandusky had been retired from Penn State since 1999, but contin­

ued to coach as a volunteer, working with kids through his Second Mile charity.

As a result of the call, the state's attorney general launched an investigation of

Sandusky, and evidence was uncovered that this wasn't the first time Sandusky

had been alleged of committing sexual abuse. Allegations of his abuse had been

cropping up since the late 1990s.

In 1998, the mother of an 11-year-old boy called Penn State University police after

she learned her son had showered naked with Sandusky in the campus's athletic

locker room and that Sandusky touched the child inappropriately. At the time,

Paterno, Curley, and Spanier, as well as Gary C. Schultz, senior vice president for

finance and business, were all informed of the incident, and an investigation was

conducted. Even though police talked with another boy who reported similar treat­

ment, they opted to close the case. During an interview with university police and

a representative from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (now known

as Human Services), Sandusky said he would not shower with children again.

Two years later, in the fall of 2000, a janitor in Penn State's Lasch football building

told a coworker and supervisor that he saw Sandusky engaged in sexual activ­

ity with a boy in the assistant coach's shower. Fearing for their jobs, neither the

· janitor nor his coworker filed a report; their supervisor did not file a report, eit_her.

"They knew who Sandusky was," Special Investigative Counsel Louis J. Freeh

later said after he completed an eight-month investigation of the scandal in 2012.

"They said the university would circle around it. It was like going against the

president of the United States. If that's the culture on the bottom, God help the

culture at the top" (Wolverton, 2012).

In 2001, Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky sexu­

ally assaulting a boy in the showers at the Lasch football building. McQueary

visited Coach Paterno's home the next morning to tell the coach what he had

witnessed. Paterno, in turn, reported the incident to Athletic Director Curley. It

wasn't until 10 days later, however, that McQueary finally met with Curley and

Schultz to describe what he saw.

Initially Curley, Schultz, and Spanier decided to report the incident to the

Department of Public Welfare. However, two days later, Curley informed Schultz

384 LEADERSHIP

and Spanier that he had changed his mind after "talking it over with Joe" Paterno.

They decided instead to offer Sandusky "professional help" and tell him to stop

bringing guests to the locker room (Wolverton, 2012). No report was made to the

police or the child protection agency. It was later found that in an email, Spanier

told Curley he approved of the athletic director's decision not to report the inci­

dent, calling it a "humane and reasonable way to proceed" (Wolverton, 2012).

McQueary, meanwhile, continued to work at Penn State, being promoted to an

assistant football coach's position. And over the next seven years, Sandusky

reportedly kept meeting and sexually assaulting young boys.

When Sandusky was finally arrested and charged with 40 counts of sexual abuse

in 2011, it was at the end of a three-year investigation launched by that mother's

2008 phone call. The investigation not only uncovered that Sandusky sexually

abused eight boys over a 15-year period, but determined that university leaders,

including Spanier and Schultz, knew about the coach's behavior and did not act.

During testimony they gave during the attorney general's investigation, these

same leaders denied knowing about the 1998 and 2001 incidents; but the inves­

tigation proved through emails and other documents that university leaders did

not truthfully admit what they knew about these incidents and when they knew

it. As a result, Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury and failure to report

what they knew of the allegations.

While Spanier called Sandusky's behavior "troubling," he pledged his uncondi­

tional support for both Curley and Schultz, predicting they would be exonerated

(Keller, 2012). Two days later, however, Paterno and Spanier were fired by the uni­

versity's Board of Trustees, and the board hired Freeh to conduct an independent

investigation of the scandal.

Eight months later, Freeh released a scathing 267-page report that detailed how

and when university leaders knew about Sandusky's behavior and stated that

they failed to report repeated allegations of child sexual abuse by Sandusky. The

report stated that Spanier and Paterno displayed "a total disregard for the safety

and welfare of children" and hid critical facts from authorities on the alleged

abuses (Wolverton, 2012).

The investigation by Freeh found emails and other documents suggesting that

Spanier, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley all knew for years about the sexual nature

of the accusations against Sandusky and kept these allegations under wraps.

The report stated that Paterno, especially, "was an integral part of the act to

conceal" (Keller, 2012). Athletic Director Curley was described in the report as

"someone who followed instruction regardless of the consequences and was

'loyal to a fault.'" One senior official called Curley Paterno's "errand boy." And

finally, the investigation concluded that Spanier "failed in his duties as president"

for "not promptly and fully advising the Board of Trustees about the 1998 and

(Continued)

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 385

(Continued)

2001 child-sexual abuse allegations against Sandusky and the subsequent grand

jury investigation of him" (Keller, 2012).

But it wasn't just the university administrators who took fire. The report also cited

the university's Board of Trustees for failing "to exercise its oversight," stating

"the Board did not create a 'tone at the top' environment wherein Sandusky and

other senior university officials believed they were accountable to it." Ultimately,

Freeh's report concluded that the reputations of the university and its exalted

football program were "more important to its leaders than the safety and welfare

of young children" (Keller, 2012).

Joe Paterno died in January 2012. Six months later, Sandusky, the assistant coach

he protected, was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced to

30 to 60 years in prison. Former Penn State officials Curley, Schultz, and Spanier

were all sentenced to jail time for failing to alert authorities of the allegations

against Sandusky, allowing him to continue molesting boys for years.

A month after Sandusky's conviction and 10 days after Freeh's report was released,

a much-beloved 7-foot, 900-pound bronze statue of Paterno was removed from

its pedestal outside Penn State's Beaver Stadium, providing symbolic evidence

of the failure of Paterno's "Success With Honor" motto and the public's faith in

Penn State's program.

Questions

1. How would you describe the followership at Penn State? Whom would you

identify as the followers? Who are the leaders?

2. Using Kelley's typology, how would you describe the follower styles for

Schultz and Curley? What about McQueary?

3. How did followers in this case act in ways that contribute to the power of

destructive leaders and their goals? What was the debilitating impact their

actions had on the organization?

4 . Based on Lipman-Blumen 's psychological factors that contribute to

harmful leadership (Table 13.3), explain why those who could have

reported Sandusky's behaviors chose not to.

5. Based on the outcome, where did Paterno's intentions go wrong? In what

ways could followers have changed the moral climate at Penn State?

6. In the end, who carries the burden of responsibility regarding the failure of

Paterno's program-the leaders or the followers? Defend your answer.

386 LEADERSHIP

LEADERSHIP INSTRUMENT

As discussed earlier in this chapter, Kelley (1992) developed a typology that categorized followers into one of five styles (exemplary, alienated, conformist, passive, and pragmatist) based on two axes (independent thinking and active engagement). These different dimensions of followership became the basis for Kelley's Followership Qyestionnaire, a survey that allows followership style to be determined through an empirical approach, rather than through observation.

CHAPTER 13 FOLLOWERSHIP 387

Followership Questionnaire

Purpose: The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn about your style as a

follower.

Instructions: Think of a specific leader-follower situation where you were in the

role of follower. For each statement, please use the following scale to indicate the

extent to which the statement describes you and your behavior in this situation.

Key: 0 = Rarely 1 = Almost rarely 2 = Seldom 3 = Occasionally

4 = More often than not 5 = Often 6 = Almost always

1. Does your work help you fulfill some societal goal or 0 2 3 4 5 6 personal dream that is important to you?

2. Are your personal work goals aligned with the 0 2 3 4 5 6 organization's priority goals?

3. Are you highly committed to and energized by your 0 2 3 4 5 6 work and organization, giv ing them your best ideas and performance?

4 . Does your enthusiasm also spread to and energize O 2 3 4 5 6 your coworkers?

5. Instead of waiting for or merely accepting what 0 2 3 4 5 6 the leader tells you, do you personally identify which organizational activities are most critical for achieving the organization's priority goals?

6. Do you actively develop a distinctive competence O 1 2 3 4 5 6 in those critical activities so that you become more valuable to the leader and the organization?

7. When starting a new job or assignment, do you O 1 2 3 4 5 6 promptly build a record of successes in tasks that are important to the leader?

8. Can the leader give you a difficult assignment O 1 2 3 4 5 6 without the benefit of much supervision, knowing that you will meet your deadline with highest-quality work and that you will "fill in the cracks" if need be?

9. Do you take the initiative to seek out and 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond your job?

10. When you are not the leader of a group project, do 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 you still contribute at a high level, often doing more than your share?

11. Do you independently think up and champion new 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ideas that will contribute significantly to the leader's or the organization's goals?

12. Do you try to solve the tough problems (technical or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 organizational), rather than look to the leader to do it for you?

388 LEADERSHIP

13. Do you help out other coworkers, making them look 0 2 3 4 5 6 good, even when you don't get any credit?

14. Do you help the leader or group see both the 0 2 3 4 5 6 upside potential and downside risks of ideas or plans, playing the devil's advocate if need be?

15. Do you understand the leader's needs, goals, and 0 2 3 4 5 6 constraints, and work hard to help meet them?

16. Do you actively and honestly own up to your strengths 0 2 3 4 5 6 and weaknesses rather than put off evaluation?

17. Do you make a habit of internally questioning the 0 2 3 4 5 6 wisdom of the leader's decision rather than just doing what you are told?

18. When the leader asks you to do something that 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 runs contrary to your professional or personal preferences, do you say "no" rather than "yes"?

19. Do you act on your own ethical standards rather 0 2 3 4 5 6 than the leader's or the group's standards?

20. Do you assert your views on important issues, even 0 2 3 4 5 6 though it might mean conflict with your group or reprisals from the leader?

Source: Excerpts from Kelley, Robert E. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves. New York: Doubleday.

Scoring

The Followership Questionnaire measures your style as a follower based on two

dimensions of followership: independent thinking and active engagement. Your

responses indicate the degree to which you are an independent thinker and

actively engaged in your follower role. Score the questionnaire by doing the

following. Your scores will classify you as being primarily one of the five styles:

exemplary, alienated, conformist, pragmatist, or passive.

1. Independent Thinking Score: Sum of questions 1, 5, 11 , 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19,

and 20

2. Active Engagement Score: Sum of questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13,

and15

• Exemplary Followership Style: If you scored high (above 40) on both

independent thinking and active engagement, your followership

style is categorized as exemplary.

• Alienated Followership Style: If you scored high (above 40) on

independent thinking and low (below 20) on active engagement, your

followership style is categorized as alienated.

(Continued)

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 389

(Continued)

• Conformist Followership Style: If you scored low (below 20) on

independent thinking and high (above 40) on active engagement,

your followership style is categorized as conformist.

• Pragmatist Followership Style: If you scored in the middle

range (from 20 to 40) on both independent thinking and active

engagement, your followership style is categorized as pragmatist.

• Passive Fol/owership Style: If you scored low (below 20) on both

independent thinking and active engagement, your followership style is categorized as passive.

I Independent I Active Engagement Followership Style Thinking Score I Score

EXEMPLARY High High

ALIENATED High Low

CONFORMIST Low High

PRAGMATIST Middling Middling

PASSIVE Low Low

Source: Adapted from Kelley, Robert E. (1992). The Power of Fo//owership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves. New York: Doubleday.

Scoring Interpretation

What do the different styles mean? How should you interpret your style? The

followership styles characterize how you carry out the followership role, not who

you are as a person. At any point in time, or under different circumstances, you

may use one followership pattern rather than another.

Exemplary Follower

Exemplary followers score high in both independent thinking and active engage­

ment. They exhibit independent, critical thinking, separate from the group or

leader. They are actively engaged, using their talents for the benefit of the orga­

nization, even when confronted with bureaucracy or other noncontributing mem­

bers. Up to 35% of people are categorized as exemplary followers.

Alienated Follower

Alienated followers score high in independent thinking but low in active engage­

ment. This means that they think independently and critically, but are not active

in carrying out the role of a follower. They might disengage from the group at

times and may view themselves as victims who have received unfair treatment. Approximately 15%-25% of people are categorized as alienated followers.

390 LEADERSHIP

Conformist Follower

Conformist followers often say "yes" when they really want to say "no." Low in

independent thinking and high in active engagement, they willingly take orders

and are eager to please others. They believe that the leader's position of power

entitles the leader to followers' obedience. They do not question the social order

and find comfort in structure. Approximately 20%-30% of people are categorized

as conformist followers.

Pragmatist Follower

With independent thinking and active engagement styles that fall between high

and low, pragmatic followers are most comfortable in the middle of the road and

tend to adhere to a motto of "better safe than sorry." They will question a leader's

decisions, but not too often or too openly. They perform required tasks, but sel­

dom do more than is asked or expected. Approximately 25%-35% of people are

categorized as pragmatist followers.

Passive Follower

With low independent thinking and low active engagement behaviors, passive

followers are the opposite of exemplary followers, looking to the leader to do

their thinking for them. They do not carry out their assignments with enthusiasm

and lack initiative and a sense of responsibility. Approximately 5%-10% of people

are categorized as passive followers.

Source: Excerpts from Kelley, Robert E. (1992). The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and Followers Who Lead Themselves. New York: Doubleday. ·

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERSHIP 391

SUMMARY

Leadership requires followership, and without understanding what the act of following entails, it is difficult to fully understand leaders and leadership. Therefore, the focus in this chapter is on followership and the central role fol­ lowers play in the leadership process.

In recent years, followership has received increased attention as a legitimate and significant area of leadership study. Followership is defined as a process whereby an individual or individuals accept the influence of others to accom­ plish a common goal. It involves a power differential between the follower and the leader. From a social constructivist perspective, followership emerges from communication between leaders and followers and involves the relational process of people exerting influence and others responding to that influence.

Early research on followership resulted in a series of typologies that differ­ entiate the roles followers can play. The primary types of follower roles iden­ tified are active-engaged, independent-assertive, submissive-compliant, and supportive-conforming.

The development of these typologies provides a starting point for building the­ ory on followership. Based on a systematic analysis of the research literature, Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) introduced a broad theory of follower­ ship comprising the characteristics, behaviors, and outcomes of followers and leaders acting in relation to each other. Furthermore, these researchers pro­ posed two ways of theorizing about followership: (1) reversing the lens, which addresses followers in the opposite way they have been studied in most prior leadership research, and (2) the leadership co-created process, which conceptual­ izes followership as a give-and-take process in which individuals' following behaviors and leading behaviors interact with each other to create leadership and its resulting outcomes.

Work by Carsten and colleagues (2014) also advanced several positive facets of followership-followers get the job done, work in the best interest ofthe organiza­ tion's mission, challenge leaders, support the leader, and learn from leaders.

In addition to having a positive impact, there is another, darker side to follow­ ership. Followers can play ineffective, and even harmful, roles. Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified a series of psychological factors offollowers that contribute to harmful, dysfunctional leadership. These factors include people's needfor reas­ suring authority figures; needfor security and certainty; need to feel chosen or special; needfar membership in the human community;fear ofostracism, isolation, and social death; and fear ofpowerlessness to challenge a bad leader. The emergence of these factors occurs as a result of people's needs to find safety to feel unique and to be included in community.

392 LEADERSHIP

The existing followership literature has several strengths and certain limitations. On the positive side, the most recent literature gives recognition to follower­ ship as an integral part of the leadership equation and elevates it considerably, giving it equal footing with leadership. Second, it forces us to take leadership off its pedestal and replace it with followership. Third, it provides a useful set of basic prescriptions for what a follower should or should not do in order to be an effective follower.

On the negative side, very little methodical research has been conducted on the process of followership, which makes it difficult to theorize about followership's role in groups, organizations, and the community. Furthermore, the descrip­ tive research that has been conducted on followership is primarily anecdotal and observational. Third, the world's pervasive emphasis on and glorification of leadership may be so ingrained that the study of followership will remain constrained and never flourish. Fourth, followership research has not fully addressed the question "Why follow?" Finally, there has been little research on when and/or how patterns of followership are beneficial or detrimental.

In summary, the demand in society for effective, principled followers is grow­ ing and along with it a strong need for research-based theories of the process of followership. Until more research is done on the intricacies of followership, our understanding ofleadership will be incomplete.

CHAPTER13 FOLLOWERS HIP 393