Case Study Analysis

12

FOLLOWERSHIP

DESCRIPTION

You cannot have leaders without followers. In the previous chapter, Adaptive Leadership (Chapter 10), we

focused on the efforts of leaders in relation to the work of followers in different contexts. The emphasis was

on how leaders engage people to do adaptive work. In this chapter, we will focus primarily on 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, and Carsten, 2014).

For many people, being a follower and the process of followership has 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 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 of followers was first approached in the 1930s by Follett (1949),

groundwork on follower research wasn’t established until several decades later through the initial works of

scholars such as Zaleznik (1965), Kelley (1985), Meindl (1990), and Chaleff (1995). Still, until recently, only

a minimal number of studies have been published on followership. Traditionally, leadership research has

focused on leaders’ traits, roles, and behaviors 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 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 recent New York Times article, Susan Cain (author

of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking) 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 receiving more attention now because of three major works devoted exclusively to the process of

following: The Art of Followership: 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 will examine followership and how it is related to the leadership process. First, we will

define followers and followership and discuss the implications of these definitions. Second, we will discuss

selected typologies of followership that illustrate different styles used by followers. Next, we will explore a

formal theory of followership that has been set forth by Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten (2014) and new

perspectives on followership suggested by Carsten, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014). Last, we will explore types

of ineffective followership that contribute to destructive leadership.

Followership Defined

It is challenging to define followership 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 situations 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, followers

are thought of negatively in such situations as when people follow a cult leader such as David Koresh of the

Branch Davidians, or in a college fraternity when individuals are required to conduct life-threatening hazing

rituals of new members. Clearly, followership can be positive or negative and it plays out differently in

different settings.

What is followership? Followership is a process whereby an individual or individuals accept the influence of

others to accomplish a common goal. Followership involves a power differential between the follower and

the leader. Typically, followers comply with the directions and wishes of leaders—they defer to leaders’

power.

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 leaders

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 organizational outcomes.

Role-Based And Relational-Based Perspectives

Followership can be divided into two broad categories: role-based and relational-based (Uhl-Bien, Riggio,

Lowe, and Carsten, 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 suggestions

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. The relational-

based system is based on 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 situation. 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 of people exerting influence and responding to those influence attempts. In the

relational-based approach, followership is tied to interpersonal behaviors rather than to specific roles (DeRue

& Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten, 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 of leaders, so too, are there many types of followers

(see Table 12.1). Grouping followers’ roles into distinguishable categories to create an accurate category

system, or typology, of follower behaviors has been undertaken by several researchers. A typology enhances

our understanding of the broader area of followership by breaking it down into smaller pieces. In this case,

these pieces are different types of follower roles observed in various settings.

Table 12.1 Typologies of Followership

Zaleznik, 1965 Kelley, 1992 Chaleff, 1995 Kellerman, 2008

Withdrawn Alienated Resource Isolate

Masochistic Passive Individualist Bystander

Compulsive Conformist Implementer Participant

Impulsive Pragmatist Partner Activist

Exemplary Diehard

SOURCE: Adapted from Crossman, B. & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualizing followership – a review

of the literature. Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.

The Zaleznik Typology

The first typology of followers 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 which displayed followers’ behaviors along two axes:

Dominance–Submission and Activity–Passivity (Figure 12.1). The vertical axis represents a range of

followers from those who want to control their leaders (i.e., be dominant) 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/passive), masochistic (submissive/active), compulsive (high

dominance/passive), and impulsive (high dominance/active). Because Zaleznik was trained in psychoanalytic

theory, these follower types are based on psychological concepts. Zaleznik was .

SOURCE: Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinacy, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun.

interested in explaining the communication breakdowns between authority and subordinates, in particular the

dynamics of subordinacy conflicts. The follower types illustrated in Figure 12.1 exist as a result of followers’

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.

The Kelley Typology

Kelley’s (1992) typology (Figure 12.2) is currently the most recognized followership typology. Kelley

believes followers are enormously valuable to organizations 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 focused on the personal aspects of followers,

Kelley emphasizes the motivations of followers and follower behaviors. In his efforts to give followership

equal billing to leadership, Kelley examined those aspects of followers which account for exemplary

followership.

SOURCE: Based on Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday Business (p. 97).

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 look to the leader for direction and guidance,

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

• pragmatics who are “fence-sitters” that support the status quo but do not get on board until others do, and

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

Based on his observations, Kelley (1988) asserts that effective followers 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 courageous. Rather than framing followership in a negative light, Kelley underscores the positive

dimensions of following.

The Chaleff Typology

Chaleff (1995, 2003, 2008) developed a typology to amplify the significance of the role of followers in the

leadership process (see Table 12.1). 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 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?

Figure 12.3 Leader-Follower Interaction

SOURCE: Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The

art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (p. 71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rather than serving leaders, Chaleff argues that followers serve a common purpose along with leaders (Figure

12.3) 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 Kelley,

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 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.

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.

SOURCE: Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The

art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass (p.

75).

Chaleff created a follower typology (Figure 12.4) 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) Resource (lower left quadrant) which exhibits low support and low challenge. This is the person

who does just enough to get by.

2) Individualist (lower right quadrant) demonstrates low support and high challenge. Often

marginalized by others, the individualist speaks up and lets the leader know where she or he stands.

3) Implementer (upper left quadrant) acts with high support and low challenge. Often valued by the

leader, implementers are supportive and get the work done but, on the downside, they fail to challenge the

leader’s goals and values.

4) Partner (upper right quadrant) shows high support and high challenge. This style of follower takes

responsibility for self and the leader, fully supports the leader, but is always willing to challenge the leader

when necessary.

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 of leaders

tends to be overestimated because they generally have more power, authority, and influence, while the

importance of followers is underestimated. From her perspective, followers are subordinates who are

“unleaders.” They have less rank than leaders and they defer to leaders.

Kellerman designed a typology that differentiates followers in regard to a single attribute: level of engagement.

She suggests a continuum (Figure 12.5), 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:

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.

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, the bystander is the person who listens to

the discussion, but when it is time to make a decision, disengages and declares neutrality.

Participants are partially engaged individuals who are willing to take a stand on issues, either supporting or

opposing the leader. For example, participants would be the employees who challenge or support the leader

regarding the fairness of their company’s new overtime policy.

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 2017, activists were willing to sit in the halls of the U.S. Capitol to

protest proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.

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, a diehard is a follower who is all-consumed with his or her own position within the group to the point

of forcing the group to do what he or she wants them to do or forcing the group process to implode. For

example, there have been U.S. congresspersons 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–conformer. Or, as suggested by Carsten, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014), passive followers, anti-

authoritarian 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 leader can adapt her or his 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.

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 of followership. They state that followership is comprised of “characteristics,

behaviors and processes of individuals acting in relation to leaders” (p. 96). In addition, they describe

followership as a relationally-based process that includes how followers and leaders interact to construct

leadership and its outcomes (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten, 2014, p. 99).

Based on these definitions, Uhl-Bien et al., proposed a formal theory of followership.

They first identified the constructs (i.e. components or attributes) and variables that comprise the process of

followership as shown in Table 12.2.

SOURCE: Adapted from Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review

and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.

The constructs listed in Table 12.2 are a first attempt to differentiate the major components of followership.

Followership characteristics refer to the attributes of followers, such as the follower’s traits (e.g., confidence),

motivations, and the way an individual perceives what it means to be a follower. Leader 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 followers, and the leader’s affect (i.e., the leader’s positive or negative feelings toward

followers). Followership behaviors 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 outcomes

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 the follower receives positive or negative reinforcement

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 identified in Table 12.2, the authors

proposed two theoretical frameworks: reversing the lens (Figure 12.5) and the leadership co-created process

(Figure 12.6).

Reversing the Lens

Reversing the lens is an approach to followership that addresses followers in a manner opposite of the way

they have been studied in most prior leadership research. Rather than focusing on how followers are affected

by leaders, it focuses on how followers affect leaders and organizational outcomes. Reversing the lens

emphasizes that followers can be change agents. As illustrated in Figure 12.6, this approach addresses 1) the

impact of followers’ characteristics on followers’ behaviors, 2) the impact of followers’ behaviors on leaders’

perceptions and behavior and the impact of the leaders’ perceptions and behavior on followers’ behaviors,

and 3) the impact of both followers and leaders on followership outcomes.

Figure 12.6 Reversing the Lens

Table 12.2 Theoretical Constructs and Variables of Followership

Followership Leader Followership Followership Characteristics Cha racteristics (and Leadership) Outcomes

Behaviors

Follower Traits Follower Motivation Follower Perceptions and Constructions

Individual Follower Outcomes Individual Leader Outcomes Relationship Outcomes Leadership Process Outcomes

Leader Power Leader Perceptions and Constructions Leader Affect

Followership Behaviors Leadership Behaviors

SOURCE: Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research

agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98.

A hypothetical example of how the reversing the lens framework 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’ personality traits (e.g., introversion–extroversion, dogmatism) relate to how they

act at work; that is, their style and work behavior. Researchers might also examine how employees’ behavior

affects their supervisor’s 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 of followers on the followership process.

The Leadership Co-Created Process

A second theoretical approach, the leadership co-created process, is shown in Figure 12.7. The name of this

approach almost seems like a misnomer because it implies that it is about leadership rather than followership.

However, that is not the case. The leadership co-created process framework 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 of leading 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 another, complying, or challenging. Figure 12.7

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) that this resulting process affects outcomes.

Figure 12.7 The Leadership Co-Created Process

SOURCE: Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research

agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98.

The following example illustrates what followership would entail using the leadership co-created process

framework in Figure 12.7. 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, sharing 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 if he 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 Terry “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 framework can be seen in the different leading and

following moves Terry and Jason made. For example, when Coach Smith asked Jason to join him to paint,

he was asserting friendly influence to which Jason accepted by agreeing to work with Terry. When Jason

suggested more efficient methods of painting, Terry accepted the influence attempt and deferred to Jason’s

ideas. By calling each other by their first names while working together, both Jason and Terry assumed that

leadership was being shared.

But, when football practice started in the fall and Jason continued to call Terry by his first name instead of

“Coach Smith,” it was apparent that for Coach Smith to retain his influence with the other players, that Jason

and Terry 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 Terry’s and Jason’s leading and following

behaviors resulted in leadership which in turn resulted in effective or ineffective outcomes.

Because followership research is in the initial stages of development, the two frameworks—reversing the

lens 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

In an attempt to advance the study of followership and present followership in a positive light, Carsten, Harms,

and Uhl-Bien (2014) suggest several practical perspectives on followership. These perspectives are intended

to help organizations understand followers and to help individuals understand the positive facets of being a

follower.

1) Followers Get the Job Done.

In the past, there has been what Meindl (1995) called a “romance of leadership,” which emphasized the

importance of leaders 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

perspective, 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 of followers 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, Harms, and Uhl-Bien,

2014).

2) Followers Work in the Best Interest of the Organization’s Mission.

Although not true of all followers, proactive followers are committed to achieving 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 U.S. asked a cabinet member to do something that would personally benefit only the

president, the cabinet member might refuse, arguing that what she was asked to do was not in the best

interests of the country, to which she ultimately serves. Followers act as a check and balance on a leader’s

power, protecting the organization against abuse of this power. Proactive followers keep the organization

front and center.

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

process or procedure of which the leader is unaware, the followers become a strong asset both to the leader

and the organization. They become extra “eyes” to make sure the leader sees the organization from another

angle. In addition, followers who are proactive and challenge the leader can keep the leader in sync with

the overall mission of the organization.

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 which 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 has 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 answers 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 Amy’s grade and recalculated the grades for the rest of the class. In this example, Amy’s

challenging of Dr. Orville’ leadership resulted in positive outcomes for all the students and also for the

leader.

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 an individual member does

not receive support from other group members, the individual tends to feel disconfirmed and questions his

or her role in the group.

For a leader, having a follower that 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 to advance the leader’s goals. 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 effect outcomes can be seen at the national level, when President Donald Trump

wanted to advance a new national health care policy but could not muster enough support in his own party

(the Republicans) to get the measure to pass in Congress. In this case, not having the support of others in

a group is detrimental to a leader.

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 education 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 educational 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 following role but in the process learns the leadership role.

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.

For example, when followers are passive or submissive, their inaction can contribute to unfettered

leadership and unintentionally support 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 of such leaders in world history: Adolf Hitler, whose leadership led to the extermination of 6

million Jews in Europe; former Serbian and Yugoslavic president Slobodan Milosevic who ordered the

genocide of thousands of Albanians and forced deportation of nearly a million; Enron Corporation’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 the question: why do people follow bad leaders? 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 to highly destructive leaders. She also examines how some followers

become “henchmen” to toxic leaders, helping and supporting the toxic leader in enacting the leader’s

destructive agenda

Her thesis is that unhealthy followership occurs as a result of people’s needs to find safety, feel unique,

and to be included in community and her work is useful for developing an understanding of why some

followership is negative and has counterproductive outcomes.

1) Our Need For Reassuring Authority Figures.

As far back as psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud’s research in 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 figures. 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 to 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 he is good and

worthwhile. In this example, the teacher could take advantage of this 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 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 as pickers 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 aliens,

put up with these conditions because they need the meager income they make and they know that if

they were to complain, the farmer could report the workers to immigration authorities and they would

be deported. The fragile security of working for the farmer outweighs the uncertainty of what their

impoverished lives in Mexico would bring.

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

their side and those who are the “others” do not. Being chosen means protecting one’s uniqueness and

distinguishing oneself from others. While being chosen provides some comfort and even a feeling of

immortality, it can motivate one to do battle with others. Being part of the chosen and feeling that one

is “right” gives a sense of security to followers but it does so at the expense of appreciating the humanity

of “the other”.

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 whom

they believe “threaten” the purity of the White race. Followers of White supremacy’s belief in being

somehow special reinforces their behaviors which often involves treating others inhumanely.

4) Our Need For Membership In The Human Community

Psychologist William Schutz (1958) argued that one of human’s 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?

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 needs 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 leadership 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 of and acquires full membership to a group, the individual typically

learns and begins to practice the norms of the 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 of the group

comforting.

But being a part of the group also has a downside. This inclusion and community makes it difficult for

an individual to break out of the group or dissent if the group’s mission or values run counter to the

their own. Pressure to conform to the group makes it challenging for an individual 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 of what the group is doing (e.g., whistleblowers), they run a high risk of becoming

ostracized and isolated from the group.

For example, imagine being a member of a group of friends and several members of your group have

started to make fun of a young man in your class that is autistic 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 of the group? Or

do you “keep quiet” and maintain your relationships with your friends? Being an ethical follower carries

with it the burden of acting 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 inappropriately or treats others in harmful ways, it is hard for followers to muster the

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 impotent to express themselves in the face of authority. 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 if you challenged the leader? For example, imagine what it would

like to be a homosexual employee in an organization whose leadership is openly prejudiced against

LGBT rights. Would you be likely to express disapproval of the leadership and its policies?

Table 12.3 provides a summary of the six psychological needs of followers that foster destructive leadership.

When followers attempt to fulfill these needs, it can create contexts where unethical and destructive leaders

are allowed to thrive.

SOURCE: Based on The Allure of Toxic Leaders by J. Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 29. New York: Oxford University Press.

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 formulated models, assumptions, and

theorems, followership is an area of study still in its infancy. However, it does provide several “take-aways”

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 of leadership 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 followership? Because it is just as important as leadership.

Second, followership is about how individuals accept influence of others to reach a common goal. It describes

the characteristics and actions of people who have less power than the leader but yet are critical components

in the leadership process. The typologies of follower behaviors discussed in this chapter provide a criterion

of what 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 of followers are beneficial because they help us understand the way people act when

occupying a follower role. To know that a person is a follower is useful, but to know if that follower is a

dependent-passive follower or a proactive-antiauthoritarian follower is far more valuable. These categories

provide information about how followers act and how a leader can respond accordingly. It also helps leaders

Table 12.3 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

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 interdependent 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 of leadership [(e.g., Implicit Leadership Theory (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.

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 of

Experience, 8e (2014), that give attention to followership and ascribe it a role in the leadership process, current

followership research and literature goes further and challenges 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 answer questions

like: What makes effective followership? How do followers effect group processes and influence goal

accomplishment? How do followers influence leaders? And, how can we teach people to become capable

followers?

In addition, the new followership literature invites us to view leadership has 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 embracing the individuals without the power and the relationship these people make with the

leader. The study of followership reminds us that leadership is incomplete and cannot be understood without

focusing on and understanding the role and dimensions of followers.

Third, although in its infancy, followership research provides a set of basic prescriptions for what a follower

should or should not do to be an effective follower. 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 organization and challenge the leader

when the leader’s agenda is self-serving or unethical. Effective followers do not act anti-authoritarian, 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.

CRITICISMS

In addition to its strengths, the study of followership has certain limitations.

First, little methodical research has been conducted on the process of followership. The absence of such

research makes it difficult to concretely conceptualize the nature of followership including what defines

followers and how followers contribute to the leadership process. Without precise theories and models of

followership, there can be no clear set of principles or practices about how followership works and the role it

plays in groups, organizations, 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 category 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 conceptualized

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 leaders and followers to both be strong in their roles;

followers must serve the purpose of teaching the leader as well as be a learner from the leader (Chaleff,

1995). And in a leader-centric world, where followership’s primary purpose is seen only as important 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.

APPLICATION

“Follow the leader” is an expression familiar to many. Whether it was a way for a teacher to avoid confusion

and keep peace with her charges or as 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. 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 training 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 organizations 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 a member. Clearly, there

is demonstrable value in training programs on such topics as “Being an Effective Follower,” “Dealing with

Destructive Bosses,” or “Accepting the Challenges of Followership.” With the increased attention being given

to followership 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 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 the follower. For example,

if the leader finds that a follower is aggressive and disruptive, the information in this chapter suggests that the

follower may have authority issues and is acting out because of his or her 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.

CASE STUDIES

The following three case studies (Cases 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3) present followership in three different contexts.

The first case, Bluebird Care, describes a home health care agency and the unique ways followers contribute

to the work of the agency. The second case, Olympic Rowers, discusses a renowned rowing team and the

way the followers worked together to create cohesiveness and a magical outcome. The last case, Penn State

Sex Abuse Scandal, 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 analyse the case utilizing the principles of followership discussed in the chapter.

Case 12.1

Bluebird Care Robin Martin started Bluebird Care, an in-home health care agency, 20 years ago with a staff of two and

five 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 the 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 really 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 employee’s 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” 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 5-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 procedural 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 which 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 seldom causes problems. In addition to handling all the hiring and

training, Robin relies on Caleb to trouble shoot issues regarding client services. For both James and Caleb,

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

positive, 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 agency? Do Robin and her managers recognize

the importance of followership? Explain.

3. Using the roles identified in Chaleff’s Follower Typology (Figure 12.3), what roles do Terry, Belinda, Caleb, and James play at the agency?

4. Using the Reversing the Lens framework (Figure 12.4), explain how Caleb and James’s characteristics contribute to the followership outcomes at Bluebird Care?

5. Terry and Robin have a unique relationship in that they both engage in leading and following. How do you think each of them view 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 12.2

Olympic Rowers In the 1930s, rowing was the most popular sport in the country. The sport was not only 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 they sit 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; because 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 universities like Cornell, Harvard and

Princeton. However, two West Coast teams, University of California, Berkley and University of

Washington, had an intense rivalry with not only the crews from the East Coast but one another as well. Al

Ulbrickson, the varsity crew coach at the University of Washington, had watched jealously as the California

teams ascended to national prominence, representing the U.S. in the 1932 Olympics and was determined that

his University of Washington team would be the one to represent the U.S. 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 fishermen and gaining a spot

on the rowing team would help pay for their college education. Over the summer break these same boys

would work, often in dangerous 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, 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 are 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 sale of the boat as a whole—and humility was the common gateway

through which they were able now to come together…” (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

American Olympic team. At the Berlin Olympics, the team faced a number of challenges. One of their key

oarsman had fallen seriously ill on the transatlantic voyage to Germany and remained sick throughout the

competition. There were distractions everywhere. But every time the American boys would see tension or

nervousness in one another, they would draw closer together as a group and talk earnestly and seriously to

each other. They would drape arms over one another’s shoulders and talk 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 from behind and triumphed, winning Olympic gold.

As Brown 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 ).

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 12.3

Penn State Sex 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 coach in NCAA football history. Paterno called his brand of coaching

“The Grand Experiment” because he aimed to prove that football excellence and academic integrity could

coexist. Imbuing his program 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,

university, and Paterno, instilling 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 U.S.

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 not only Coach Paterno, the university’s

athletic director Tim Curley and the storied Penn State football program with it, 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 Second 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 Second Mile ultimately proved to be a cover and conduit for Sandusky’s sexual abuse of boys. It is

alleged that through 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 continued to coach as a volunteer, working work 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 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, Curley, Schultz, Paterno and Spanier were all informed of the incident and an

investigation was conducted. Even though police talked with another boy who reported similar treatment,

they opted to close the case. During an interview with university police and a representative from the State

Department of Public Welfare, 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 co-worker and

supervisor that he saw Sandusky engaged in sexual activity with a boy in the assistant coach’s shower.

Fearing for their jobs, neither the janitor or his coworker filed a report; their supervisor did not file a report,

either.

“They knew who Sandusky was,” Special Investigative Counsel Louis 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 sexually assaulting a boy in the

showers at 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 Gary C. Schultz, senior vice

president for finance and business, to describe what he saw.

Initially Curley, Schultz, the university’s president, Graham B. Spanier, decided to report the incident to the

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

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 incident, 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 is 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 investigation 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 Sundusky’s behavior “troubling,” he pledged his unconditional support for both Curley

and Schultz, predicting they would be exonerated (Keller, 2012). Two days later, however, Paterno and

Spanier were fired by the university’s Board of Trustees and the board hired former FBI director Louis J.

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

Curely 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 President Spanier “failed in his duties

as president” for “not promptly and fully advising the Board of Trustees about the 1998 and 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 Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham 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? Who 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, ,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? 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.

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 Questionnaire, a survey that allows followership style to be determined through an empirical

approach, rather than through observation.

Followership Questionnaire* Instructions: Think of a specific leader-follower situation where you were in the role of follower. For each

statement, please use the scale below to indicate the extent to which the statement describes you and your

behavior in this situation.

Key:

1. Does you work help you fulfill some societal goal or personal dream

that is important to you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. Are your personal work goals aligned with the organization’s priority goals? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. Are you highly committed to and energized by your work and organization,

giving them your best ideas and performance? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. Does your enthusiasm also spread to and energize your co-workers? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. Instead of waiting for or merely accepting what the leader tells you, do you

personally identify which organizational activities are most critical for achieving

the organization’s priority goals? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

6. Do you actively develop a distinctive competence in those critical activities so

that you become more valuable to the leader and the organization? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. When starting a new job or assignment, do you promptly build a record of

successes in tasks that are important to the leader? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. Can the leader give you a difficult assignment 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? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. Do you take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments

that go above and beyond your job? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. When you are not the leader of a group project, do you still contribute at a

high level, often doing more than your share? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. Do you independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute

significantly to the leader’s or the organization’s goals? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. Do you try to solve the tough problems (technical or organizational), rather

than look to the leader to do it for you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

13. Do you help out other co-workers, making them look good, even when you

don’t get any credit? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. Do you help the leader or group see both the upside potential and downside

risks of ideas or plans, playing the devil’s advocate if need be? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. Do you understand the leader’s needs, goals, and constraints, and work hard

to help meet them? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. Do you actively and honestly own up to your strengths and weaknesses

rather than put off evaluation? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

17. Do you make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of the leader’s

decision rather than just doing what you are told? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. When the leader asks you to do something that runs contrary to your

professional or personal preferences, do you say “no” rather than “yes”? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

19. Do you act on your own ethical standards rather than the leader’s or the

group’s standards? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. Do you assert your views on important issues, even though it might mean

conflict with your group or reprisals from the leader? 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

* SOURCE: Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday Business (pg. 89-92). Used with permission.

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. Use the scoring key below to score your

answers to the questions.

After you add up your self-rating on the independent thinking items and the active engagement items, plot

those totals on the following graph. Plot your independent thinking total on the vertical axis of the graph.

Then, plot your active engagement total on the horizontal axis of the graph. Now, plot your scores on the

graph by finding where your score on the vertical axis intersects with your score on the horizontal axis. The

juxtaposition of these two points forms the basis upon which your followership is classified (see Figure 12.6

below) Your scores will classify you as being primarily one of five styles: exemplary, alienated, conformist,

pragmatist, or passive.

Figure 12.8 Example of Followership Questionnaire Scoring

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 30) on active engagement your

followership style is categorized as alienated.

Conformist Followership Style

If you scored low (below 30) 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 Followership Style

If you scored low (below 30) on both independent thinking and active engagement your followership style is

categorized as passive.

* SOURCE: Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday Business (pg. 89-98). Used with permission.

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 engagement. They exhibit

independent, critical thinking, separate from the group or leader. They are actively engaged, using their

talents for the benefit of the organization, even when confronted with bureaucracy or other non-contributing

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

Alienated Follower

Alienated followers score high in independent thinking but low in active engagement. 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 a victim who has received unfair treatment.

Approximately 15-25% of people are categorized as alienated followers.

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

seldom do more than is asked or expected. Approximately 25-35% of people are categorized as pragmatist

followers.

Passive Follower Style

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: Based on Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday Business (pg. 89-124). Used

with permission.

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 followers 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 accomplish 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 differentiate the roles followers can play.

The primary types of follower roles identified are active–engaged, independent–assertive, submissive–

compliant, and supportive–conformer.

The development of these typologies provides a starting point for building theory on followership. Based on

a systematic analysis of the research literature, Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) introduced a broad theory

of followership comprised of the characteristics, behaviors, and outcomes of followers and leaders acting in

relation to each other. Furthermore, these researchers proposed 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 conceptualizes 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, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014) also advanced several positive facets of followership—

followers get the job done, work in the best interest of the organization’s mission, challenge leaders, support

the leader, and learn from leaders.

In addition to having a positive impact, there is another, darker side to followership. Followers can play

ineffective, and even harmful, roles. Lipman-Blumen (2005) identified a series of psychological factors of

followers that contribute to harmful, dysfunctional leadership. These factors include people’s need for

reassuring authority figures; need for security and certainty; need to feel chosen or special; need for

membership in the human community; fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death; and fear of

powerlessness 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.

The existing followership literature has several strengths and certain limitations. On the positive side, the

most recent literature gives recognition to followership as an integral part of the leadership equation and

elevates it considerably, giving it equal footing with leadership. Second, it forces us 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 descriptive research that has been conducted on followership is primarily anecdotal and

observational. Last, 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.

In summary, the demand in society for effective, principled follower is growing 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 of leadership will be incomplete.

REFERENCES

Brown, D.J. (2013). The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936

Berlin Olympics. Penguin: New York.

Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership beliefs and

crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20(1), 49-61.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor. R. (2010). Exploring social

constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543-562.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (3RD ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen

(Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67-87). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders, 3e. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2012). Conceptualizing followership – a review of the literature. Leadership,

7(4), 481-497.

DeRue, S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity

construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627-647.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership

as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043-1062.

Follett, M.P. (1949/1987) ‘The Essentials of Leadership’, in L. Urwick (ed.) Freedom and Co-ordination:

Lectures in Business Organization, New York: Garland Publishing.

Keller, J. (2012, July 12. How the Penn State report implicates top officials. The Chronicle of Higher

Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/article/How-the-Penn-

State-Report/132837

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(6), 141-148.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday Business.

Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.),

The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5-16). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston:

Harvard Business Press.

Lapierre, L. M., & Carsten, R. K. (2014). Followership: What is it and why do people follow? United

Kingdom: Emerald.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt

politicians – and how we can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lord, R., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and

performance. Boston: Unwin-Everyman.

Mahler, J. (2011, November 8). Grand Experiment meets an inglorious end. The New York Times. New York,

N.Y., B-12.

Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B.M. Staw & L.L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 12, (pp.159-203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist

approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329-341.

Riggio, R. E. (2014). Followership research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Leadership

Education, 13(4), 15-20.

Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create

great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rost, J. (2008). Followership: An outmoded concept. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen

(Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 53-64). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York, NY: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process.

In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.) Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A

tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix-xxxix). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publiehers.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). "The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour". In S. Worchel &

W. G. Austin. Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. pp. 7–24.

Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and

research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.

Wolverton, B. (2012, July 12). Penn State’s culture of Rreverence led to ‘total disregard’ for children’s safety.

The Chronicle of Higher Education, retrieved from

http://www.chronicle.com.libproxy.library.wmich.edu/article/Penn-States-Culture-of/132853

Zaleznik, A. (1965), The Dynamics of subordinacy, Harvard Business Review, May-Jun 1965.