Followership as a Role

CHAPTER

20 To Follow or not to Follow? A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership Melissa K. Carsten

A s an executive of Garamond Global Research, Sam Stokes had made it to the top. He had worked hard over the years, devoting his life to growing and developing a high impact

and highly regarded global research organization. The company was extremely profitable, working mostly with small client organizations looking to conduct market research and analysis. What Sam didn’t know, was that he had lost the respect, loyalty, and support of his followers long ago. As a leader, his actions were deemed unacceptable, and even unethical, however few followers had the guts to stand up and voice their frustration.

Over the many years that he worked at Garamond, Sam amassed a great deal of power and influence over major company decisions, use of company resources, as well as hiring and firing decisions. As he continued to gain power, Sam’s subordinates began to notice that he became more secretive about how resources were being used, and much more selective about who received the resources. The company also began experiencing greater amounts of turnover from Sam’s direct and indirect reports, with the average tenure of his employees being only 2.5 years. As more and more employees left the organization, rumors stemming from ex-employees began to surface. The stories told of Sam’s misuse of company funds, favoritism with certain employees, and seemingly unethical actions with client projects. It wasn’t long before current employees began noticing his indiscretions too.

171

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 6 . E m e r a l d G r o u p P u b l i s h i n g L i m i t e d .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY AN: 1423630 ; Melissa K. Carsten, Rob Koonce, Michelle C. Bligh, Marc Hurwitz.; Followership in Action : Cases and Commentaries Account: s8876267.main.relall

For example, on one occasion, Sam was confronted by Terry, one of his subordinates who asked why his request for more project funding was denied. Terry explained that the funds were necessary to complete work that had been requested by his client organization. According to the budget documentation, the increased funds would support a second phase of the project that could potentially bring the company a great deal of revenue. Sam’s response to the inquiry was coarse and defensive. He told Terry that fund allocation was none of his business, and that he had to complete the project with the original budget. When Terry asked for more explanation, and requested a meeting with Sam to rework budget money and perhaps come to a solution together, Sam replied, “It’s not your money, so you don’t have a say in how it is spent.”

On another occasion, a subordinate named Morgan confronted Sam on his decision to promote an employee who had poor levels of productivity, shirked his responsibilities, and took credit for work that he did not complete. The promoted employee was selected over others who had stellar performance records and went above and beyond their minimal work responsibilities. Sam was offended that Morgan would question his decision, and became angry at the implication that he used favoritism to fill the position. When Morgan explained that she simply wanted to understand the reasoning behind the decision, and that she feared others would become disillusioned at the perceived inequity, Sam replied “If others have a problem with it, then they can find their way to the door. I am not here to make people happy, I am here to ensure the success of the company.”

Perhaps the most abrasive of Sam’s actions was one that directly affected a project team who worked long days and put in many hours to meet a short deadline for a high profile client. As the team completed their work, Sam insisted on seeing the final report so he could make modifications. Perceiving that they had little choice in the matter, the team handed over their report to Sam believing that he would improve upon their work. Instead, Sam deleted major sections of the report that were not seen as positive or favorable for the company, and replaced them with falsified data that demonstrated a larger market impact than the client was actually having. When the team requested a final version of the report, Sam simply told them that they no longer had to worry about it, and that he “took care of it.” One member of the team confronted Sam on his secrecy, stating that he did not feel comfortable delivering the final report to the client without cross checking all the findings. The subordinate also stated that he worried the report might be painting an overly positive picture of their research. Sam told him: “We do what we have to do to survive. Do you think I worked my way to

172 MELISSA K. CARSTEN

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

the top by doing things the ‘right’ way? Sometimes you just have to give the client what they want rather than what they need.”

Although a few employees confronted Sam directly about his decisions and use of resources, most of them remained silent. They were uncomfortable questioning Sam’s actions due to his level of power and status in the company. They felt that confronting a manager of Sam’s stature would be inappropriate and perhaps lead to negative consequences. Although Sam had never fired anyone for asking questions, most of the subordinates feared that, at the very least, they would fall out of his favor if they ever crossed him.

With so few subordinates willing to challenge Sam’s actions, his indiscretions only grew more bold and overt. He would fly his family first-class on extravagant vacations using company funds. He was also witnessed falsifying productivity reports, and providing raises to himself and his selected in-group. Others in the company had not received raises or recognition for their work, while Sam favored a small group of insiders without merit.

Meanwhile, the rest of the employees felt as though they lacked positive and supportive leadership. They began to turn to one another as a sounding board and reached out to each other to discuss their projects, challenges they were facing, and for advice on how to manage clients and staff. Over time, one of them named Clara Rogers began to emerge as the “best” go to person. When an employee had a problem, needed advice, or expertise, the suggestion that was made was “go see Clara.”

Clara Rogers had only been an employee for five years, but had quickly earned the respect and admiration of her co-workers. They saw her as the “expert” and the one they could count on for both good advance and compassion. Although she did not know it at the time, Clara had earned a great deal of informal power among her coworkers and was clearly regarded as a leader amongst her peers, even though her position title afforded her no legitimate authority. Over time, the employees began to identify with Clara, support her vision for the company, and invest personal energy in her ideas or agenda.

While Sam continued to demonstrate duplicitous behavior, Clara emerged as an informal leader with numerous followers. One employee stated: “We follow Sam because we have to, but we follow Clara because we want to.” The company was able to stay in business for many years despite Sam’s indiscretions. Although they did suffer losses in terms of turnover, many employees remained with the organization because they identified so strongly with Clara, and because they saw hope and meaning in the vision and direction she offered for the company.

A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 173

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

Scholarly Commentary Leadership is not about titles. It is not about seniority. It is not about status, and it is not about management. Leadership is about power, and the ability to know when and how to use it to influence the people around you to do and become more. (Terina R. Allen, President & CEO ARVis Institute)

In the thousands of books and articles written about leadership, it is often forgotten that followers are an essential part of the equation. As depicted in the case above, followership can take many different forms. Some followers may be silent, deferent, and blindly obedient, while others challenge their leaders, question their decisions, and stand up against tyranny. Still others can decide that they don’t want to follow at all and reserve their energy and enthusiasm for leaders who are truly inspiring and trustworthy. These different forms of followership are at the discretion of the individual employee, influenced by the leader and context, and can have profound effects on the success of an organization.

In their review of followership theory, Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten (2014) discuss the role-based approach to followership as an investigation of the follower beliefs, actions, and outcomes of followers (subordinates), working in relation to leaders (managers) in the organization. This approach builds on the notion of follower role orientations, or the beliefs followers hold regarding the tasks, responsibilities, and competencies that should be demonstrated while serving in a follower role (cf. Parker, 2000, 2007; Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997). According to studies conducted by Carsten and colleagues (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010), followers may assume one of three different types of role orientations: a coproduction orientation, a passive orientation, or an antiauthoritarian orientation.

A coproduction orientation is the belief that the follower role involves actively engaging with leaders by relaying important information, identifying and solving problems, and even constructively challenging the leader when appropriate (Carsten et al., 2010). These individuals believe that leadership is enhanced by the engagement of followers, and that followers have something valuable to contribute to the leadership process. With regard to the case, this type of follower is exemplified by the individuals who confronted Sam’s indiscretions and challenged his decisions. While there is undoubtedly an element of risk that accompanies this type of challenge and confrontation, these followers believe that it is their job to challenge leaders when they feel that the leader is headed down the wrong path, or making decisions that could potentially

174 MELISSA K. CARSTEN

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

hurt the organization (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). They embrace the opportunity to get involved and see their engagement with the leader as a chance to help advance the objectives of the organization. These followers can have a positive impact on the organization because they think critically about the mission of the organization and evaluate the means through which the organization works to achieve it.

Conversely, a passive follower role orientation is characterized by the belief that leaders are more knowledgeable, powerful, and proficient than followers (Baker, 2007; Carsten et al., 2010), and that followers should remain silent and deferent as a result of their subordinate status (Carsten et al., 2010). These individuals believe that the leader’s power should not be challenged and that the leader has ultimate discretion to make decisions, even hurtful ones, because they have earned it. In the case of Sam Stokes, the followers who remained silent, refrained from standing up to him, and followed all of his directives would be said to have a passive role orientation. According to Uhl-Bien and Carsten (2007), these followers may be complicit in unethical behavior initiated by the leader and contribute to wrongdoing in the workplace because the leader ordered them to engage in disruptive practices.

The third category is that of the antiauthoritarian follower. These individuals are considered “non-followers” because they resist the influence and authority of the leader, and believe that leaders will use their power to manipulate others. These individuals are not insubordinate; they will follow directives and fulfill their role responsibilities, but thwart any influence attempts made by the leader. Under these circumstances, we have to ask ourselves if the leader is really leading. Instead, it may be that leaders can only engage in management when working with individuals who believe in non-following.

Although not identified in the follower role orientation literature advanced by Carsten and colleagues, another important role orientation of followers may be the “leading-up” orientation. Upward leadership or “leading-up” occurs when a follower with no formal power or authority engages in leadership behavior with superiors and inspires others to adopt ideas or initiatives important to the organization. These individuals believe that they can make a difference in the organization and help advance the mission. However, with no formal power or authority, followers must be very careful when they engage in leading-up. In the case above, Clara became an influential leader among her peers because the formal leader was corrupt and not worth following. Although Clara had no formal power or authority, she saw an important opportunity to engage others with her vision and support others through their work processes. Her peers grew to trust her and

A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 175

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

followed voluntarily. There is no doubt that Clara played a role in retention of the company’s talented employees. She gave the employees hope and instilled meaning in their work. She led from the bottom up believing that she could make a difference and feeling as though she was called to service.

The case above demonstrates the different role orientations maintained by followers, and how those role orientations may result in followership behavior. Just as leaders come in many different forms and demonstrate many different styles, followers also bring unique perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors to their interactions with leaders. As we continue to devote energy to understanding multiple follower role orientations, our hope is that it will ultimately lead to a better understanding of the leadership process. Leadership is created through the interactions of leaders and followers working together to advance the mission of an organization (Shamir, 2007). As we continue to study and learn about leadership, it is equally important that we pay close attention to the role of followers and better understand how they contribute to the leadership process.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. How can people lead without formal power and authority? What skills are required to be an effective “bottom-up” leader?

2. Which of the follower role orientations discussed in the commentary were most/least beneficial for the staff of Sam Stokes? Which follower role orientations do you believe would be most/least beneficial in your own organization? Why? Which follower role orientations do you believe are most/least beneficial to organizations in general? Why?

3. What types of leaders would be best working with followers who have a coproduction orientation? How about a passive or antiauthoritarian orientation? Which of these follower orientations do you believe would work best with Sam Stokes?

4. What other follower role orientations might exist? Can you think about another category of beliefs that people may hold regarding the follower role?

5. If you worked with a superior like Sam Stokes, how would you approach him regarding his unethical behavior? What would be the potential benefits and drawbacks involved? Why do you believe more people do not stand up to unethical leaders?

176 MELISSA K. CARSTEN

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

References Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50�60. doi:10.1177/0002831207304343 Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Follower beliefs in the co-production of leadership: Examining upward communication and the moderating role of context. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 220(4), 210�220. doi:10.1027/ 2151-2604/a000115

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543�562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015 Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(3), 447�469. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00025 Parker, S. K. (2007). That is my job: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403�434. doi:10.1177/0018726707076684 Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 899�929. doi:10.2307/256952 Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership. A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix�xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187�201. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.006 Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83�104. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007

A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 177

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

This page intentionally left blank

EBSCOhost - printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use