leadership

International Journal of the Academic Business World 9

Introduction

The idea of leadership connotes images of in- fluential individuals wielding great power com- manding troops in pursuit of the almighty cause. The role of the follower, on the other hand, has typically received much less acclaim. However in reality, without followers, leaders would cease to exist.

Often, success is attributed solely to the lead- er while the role of followers goes unnoticed (Hughes, Ginnet, & Curphy, 1996; Meindl & Ehrlich, 1987). However, followers have great influence on the success of the leader (Offerman, 2004). Contrary to common perceptions, influ- ence is not solely possessed by the leader. The sheer existence of followers suggests that leaders are not the sole possessors of power. Followers have some control over their own destiny in that they choose to follow or not to follow. It may be said that it is the follower who gives a leader power, through the choice to follow.

Influence may arise from either party in the re- lationship (Hughes, Ginnet, & Curphy, 1996). While the leader may assume a more prominent role within the relationship, follower influence grants a balance of power as a part of social ex- change (Homans, 1961). Thus, effective leader-

ship is achieved through a process whereby reci- procity, power sharing and two-way influence exists (Hollander and Offerman, 1990).

The study of followership recognizes the mutual interdependence between leaders and followers. This research stream examines the influence of followers on leader effectiveness in an attempt to fill gaps left in the wake of the vast volumes of leadership research. Within the leadership lit- erature, only a small amount of effort has been directed toward understanding the contribution of followership (Yukl, 2002). It is important to state that followership research should not be viewed as being competitive with leadership ef- forts as it is yet another perspective addressing to- ward assessing the same phenomenon. Coupled with an understanding of leaders, followership studies enable researchers and practitioners alike to attain greater perspective on the leadership phenomenon.

Types of Followers

Within the leadership phenomenon, the role of leader assumes a certain level of responsibil- ity in order to achieve success. Leader may have creative freedom concerning how they choose to lead; however, the fact remains that the leader is ultimately responsible. Responsible for engaging

Who Are We Leading? Identifying Effective Followers: A Review of Typologies

Brandon R. Kilburn, PhD Associate Professor of Management

Department of Management, Marketing and Political Science College of Business and Public Affairs

University of Tennessee at Martin

ABSTRACT The study of followership recognizes a mutual interdependence between leaders and followers. Based on this reciprocal relationship, the more we understand about followers the more we empower our leaders. In this paper, a comparison will be made among the four most noted followership typologies to assess congruency among their respective criteria in an attempt to find convergence among these efforts. Upon the analysis of these typologies, their applicability to the practice of lead- ership is addressed. The ultimate goal of this research is to provide value to both current and future leaders alike.

Brandon R. Kilburn

10 Spring 2010 (Volume 4 Issue 1)

followers, showing initiative, motivating, inspir- ing, problem solving, establishing goals, pursuing tasks, assessing the situation, and processing in- formation among other things. The role of the follower, however, can be quite different. Follow- ers do not necessarily face the demands imposed upon leaders. There is a level of choice granted to followers. Beginning with the choice to fol- low, followers may then choose how to follow. Followers may often choose to engage the leader or wait until approached. Followers may choose to solve problems or have them solved by others. Followers may choose to pursue the task inde- pendently or wait until given orders. Based on their choices, followers may be categorized into groups.

Over the years, a few research endeavors have sought to develop well grounded means for such categorization. Based on key follower character- istics these efforts make provisions for manag- ers to dissect their follower population to better understand who we are leading. In this paper, a comparison will be made among four highly rec- ognized typologies to assess congruency among their respective constructs in an attempt to find a convergence among these efforts. Upon the analysis of these notable typologies, application of these typologies to the field of leadership will be addressed.

Zaleznik (1965)

Beginning with Abraham Zaleznik (1965), fol- lowers were categorized within a 2x2 matrix, which two criteria upon which the matrix axes are based. The first being the dominance vs. sub- mission continuum by which at each extreme end followers are seen as wanting to control their su- periors (dominance) or wanting to be controlled by them (submission). The second axis is the ac- tivity vs. passivity continuum by which at each extreme followers is viewed as initiating action (active) or doing nothing (passive). Zaleznik sug- gested four classes of followers based on place- ment in the grid.

The first group is labeled as ‘impulsive’. This group is seen as being both dominant and active wanting to control and actively pursuing their

desires. The next group is labeled ‘compulsive’. These followers are seen as being dominant but passive. These followers secretly desire control but lack the activity to pursue their desires. Za- leznik’s third class of followers is the ‘masochis- tic’ group. These followers are active within the organization but do not care to possess author- ity. Finally, the last group is labeled as the ‘with- drawn’ showing no desire for control and little activity in the workplace. Zaleznik’s effort was the first notable attempt to categorize followers which provided a foundation for future attempts at categorizing followers.

Kelley (1988; 1992)

A few decades later, Robert Kelley (1988; 1992) provided a similar typology for identifying fol- lower groups which also employed a 2x2 matrix structure. Kelley identified five categories of followers (effective, alienated, yes-people, sheep, and survivors) based on two dimensions: critical independent thinking and activity level. Accord- ing to Kelley (1988):

Effective followers have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to either, and above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater purpose (p.107).

In addition to Kelley’s description, effective fol- lowers are more likely to interact with leaders due to their active nature, while their ability to think independently may increase the value of the information they provide (Kelley, 1992). It could be said that an effective follower is one that holds within it the potential of leadership. Be- haviors that represent effective leadership such as the ability to think independently and to pursue action include attributes of good follow- ership. Therefore, these effective followers hold the greatest potential to become effective lead- ers (Hollander & Webb, 1955; Kouzes & Pos- ner, 1987). This premise reinforces the need for

Who Are We Leading? Identifying Effective Followers: A Review of Typologies

International Journal of the Academic Business World 11

greater understanding of followers which could simultaneously increase our knowledge of lead- ers.

According to Kelley’s work, the four remaining groups of followers are deficient in either level of activity or independent thinking, or both. The ‘alienated’ followers are deficient in activity level. Members of this group possess the level of inde- pendent thinking to be effective; however, they choose to be inactive. Opposite of this group are the ‘yes-people’ who are highly active yet lack independent thinking skills. Combining the weak points of these two groups gives us the ‘sheep’ who are the farthest away from the effec- tive group by displaying low levels of both activ- ity and independent thinking. Possibly the most difficult group to lead are the ‘survivors’. These individuals pursue their own agenda and act as a chameleon doing what ever is necessary to pre- serve self. In addition to the categorization Kel- ley (1992) published a 20-item, 2-dimensional scale used to classify follower type based on ac- tivity level and independent thinking measures. This scale will be addressed in an upcoming sec- tion of this work.

Chaleff (1995)

Following the work of Robert Kelley, was Ira Chaleff’s 1995 book “The Courageous Follower”. In this book, another 2x2 matrix is constructed to identify more specific followership styles. The two axes in this matrix represent two dimensions of courageous followership. The first dimension refers to the level of support given to the leader by the follower while the second dimension ad- dresses the willingness of followers to challenge a leader on critical issues. Based on these criteria, four types of followers are established.

The first of Chaleff’s typologies is the ‘partner’. These followers provide strong support for their leader while maintaining the right to challenge their leader when discrepancies arise. The ‘im- plementer’ is the second group addressed in this study. These followers show vigorous support for their leader and are relatively unwilling to chal- lenge the leader in the event of a discrepancy. These followers would likely knowingly follow a

leader down the wrong path. Next, the ‘individ- ualist’ is the type of follower who has little regard for the leader and is willing to challenge policies or procedures that are not acceptable. Finally, Chaleff proposed the ‘resource’ follower type. These followers put forth minimal effort show- ing little support while being unwilling to chal- lenge a leader. The resource follower is predomi- nately extrinsically motivated, cares little about the work relationship and shows little commit- ment to the leader or the organization.

Chaleff’s “courageous follower” research is some- what different from the other works addressed here due to the fact that it attempts to examine “the courageous follower”. The specificity of this work attempts to narrow down it’s typology to examine only those “courageous” characteristics. This work should be considered as pioneering the way for future works to specialize on certain criteria by which followers may be examined in a situational context. While Chaleff examines the courageous follower, future research may explore other attributes of followers with such specificity to enrich our understanding of the many pieces that form the followership puzzle.

Kellerman (2007)

The last typology addressed here was developed by Barbara Kellerman (2007). This typology uses a single continuum to classify followers. The first endpoint is anchored by “feeling and doing nothing” at the opposite end of the continuum followers are observed as “being passionately committed and deeply involved”. It is important to note that, in this typology, those who show activity are assumed to act independently which might or might not be in support of a leader. The primary focus here is not upon the leaders behalf as it focuses on the follower propensity to engage the situation whether in support or opposition of the leader.

As Kellerman begins at one end and works to- ward the other, five follower types are addressed. Starting with “feeling and doing nothing” at the extreme level are the ‘isolates’. These followers are totally removed from the situation and give minimal effort or attention to their leader. Mov-

Brandon R. Kilburn

12 Spring 2010 (Volume 4 Issue 1)

ing down the continuum, ‘bystanders’ are atten- tive to the situation but refuse to pursue action. Self-interest is the primary motivator of their ac- tion. At the mid-point of the continuum, ‘par- ticipants’ are somewhat engaged in the relation- ship and workplace activities. These followers are willing to devote some effort toward making a difference. Now over the hump, the ‘activists’ are somewhat committed and involved. These followers have strong feeling about their envi- ronment. In conjunction with their strong feel- ing, these followers are willing to act on behalf of what they feel is right or wrong. Similarly, the final group of followers addressed by Keller- man is the ‘diehards’. Diehards are committed and involved with pursuit of cause. This group is intensely committed and involved to the extent that they are willing to accept risks. The diehards

are willing to go down with the ship, standing by what they think is right.

Research Comparison

Upon review of these efforts, this study will now to examine the criteria of these studies typologies in conjunction in an effort to gain congruency among this most notable body of work in the area of followership (See figure 1 below for sum- mation of studies). At this juncture, it is impor- tant to understand that the role of the follower in each of these typologies is not static. Followers may move in and out of certain groups depend- ing on the desires of the follower in a given situa- tion. For instance, with a change in leadership or organizational environment followers may alter their behavior by becoming more or less active,

FIguRe 1 TypologIes: CRITeRIa and gRoups

Criteria Follower Types

Zaleznik (1965)

Two Axes:

Dominance vs. Submission

Activity vs. Passivity

Impulsive: Dominant and Active

Compulsive: Dominant and Passive

Masochistic: Submissive and Active

Withdrawn: Submissive and Passive

Kelley (1988, 1992)

Two Axes:

Independent Thinking

Activity Level

Effective: High Thinking, High Activity

Alienated: High Thinking, Low Activity

Yes-people: Mid Thinking, Mid Activity

Sheep: Low Thinking, Low Activity

Survivors: Low Thinking, High Activity

Chaleff (1995)

Two Axes:

Level of Support

Willingness to Challenge

Partner : High Support, High Challenge

Implementer : High Support, Low Challenge

Individualist: Low Support, High Challenge

Resource: Low Support, Low Challenge

Kellerman (2007)

Continuum Endpoints:

Feeling/Doing Nothing

Passionately Committed/ Deeply Involved

Isolates: Feel Nothing, Do nothing

Bystanders: Feel Little, Do Little

Participants: Partially Committed and Involved

Activists: Moderately Committed and Involved

Diehards: Highly Committed and Involved

Who Are We Leading? Identifying Effective Followers: A Review of Typologies

International Journal of the Academic Business World 13

engaging, concerned, etc. As Chaleff (1995) con- tinuously pointed out, many followers also have room for growth and development in certain ar- eas. Similarly, followers may choose to withdraw or reduce participation for any given reason.

When assessing these typologies, one primary convergence quickly presented itself. That is the use of the activity criteria in each study as a key variable by which to identify and classify follow- ers. In Zaleznik (1965) and Kelley (1988; 1992), the use of this criteria was highly evident. The latter used Activity vs. Passivity as an axis of the 2x2 matrix while the former used Activity level in the exact same fashion. While Chaleff’s work is somewhat different, it does ultimately address activity as the primary criteria by which follow- ers are categorized. The two criteria used to cat- egorize followers in the work of Chaleff (1995) both address some level of activity by examining

two specific activities: Support for Leader and Challenging of the Leader. Finally, Kellerman (2007) uses a continuum to classify followers by which each endpoint is somewhat double bar- reled with multiple criteria for each endpoint (Endpoint 1: Feeling Nothing/Doing nothing; Endpoint 2: Passionately Committed/Deeply Involved). While this does introduce issues in understanding the criteria, the “doing nothing” and “deeply involved” criteria is representative of follower activity.

Based on this analysis of relevant literature, it ap- pears that the activity level criteria is considered by notable scholars to be extremely important in attempting to identify followers (See figure 2 be- low for comparison among studies). A secondary observation derived from this analysis of litera- ture was the similarity between follower groups located at the extreme points of each typologies.

Activity Level as a Criteria: Zaleznik (1965) Activity vs. Passitivity Kelley (1988; 1992) Activity Level Chaleff (1995) Willingness To Challenge & Level of Support Kellerman (2007) Doing Nothing & Deeply Involved

All of the above criteria are based on activity this construct is involved in 6 of 8 criteria employed in these works. This is the primary overlap identified in this review.

Follower Type Extremes: High Extremes Impulsive Followers (Zaleznik, 1965) Effective Followers (Kelley, 1988; 1992) Partner (Chaleff, 1995) Diehards (Kellerman, 2007)

Low Extremes Withdrawn Followers (Zaleznik, 1965) Sheep (Kelley, 1988; 1992) Resource Followers (Chaleff, 1995) Isolates (Kellerman, 2007)

These follower types which are identified by the authors at the extreme high or low ends for all crite- ria appear to be highly similar for both the high and low respective groups. Further analysis would likely be necessary to identify if and where real differences exist between these classifications. The mid range classifications however, are more difficult to link similarities between typologies.

FIguRe 2 ConVeRgenCe aMong sTudIes

Brandon R. Kilburn

14 Spring 2010 (Volume 4 Issue 1)

After careful review, it became difficult to differ- entiate between the follower types located at the extreme high or low end for each typology. It be- came much more different to assimilate the mid- range followers across typologies when compared to those at the extreme ends. Thus it appears that these groups, while given different names, are very similar (See Figure 2 on the previous page for comparison among studies).

Utilizing the Typologies

After review of these typologies, one must ask from an organizational leadership perspective, where does the value lie in such typologies? The answer lies in the instrument. A typology with- out a means for measurement is much like being given instructions to perform a task without hav- ing the necessary tools. If you merely read the in- structions and have no tools to do the job then the task still remains. Thus, the value of these typologies lies in the ability to accurately cat- egorize followers. In order to get the maximum value from such typologies, leaders need a means for gathering data and measuring these specific follower characteristics. Based on the previous review, this is especially true for the follower ac- tivity criteria. Therefore, when ideal criteria such as follower activity level, are specified measure- ment tools will allow leaders to more accurately identify targeted groups of followers in given situations.

Ideal types can be modeled using specified ideal profiles (Doty and Glick, 1994). Values may be assigned to these ideal criteria in an effort to form the ideal profile and establish grounds for measurement (Doty and Glick, 1994). Thus, if leaders are able to identify these ideal criteria to form classifications, the instrument will likely provide itself useful in classifying followers. Ul- timately, the usefulness of such follower typolo- gies arises from the leader’s ability to categorize followers in a means to improve decision making abilities and increase leader effectiveness. Thus, proposition one is posited.

Proposition 1: Leaders who are able to identify ideal criteria to represent follower categories will be more likely to

use typologies to increase leader effectiveness.

Of the above typologies, Kelley (1992) offers the only published instrument by which to assess and categorize followers based on specific measure- ments. Kelley’s instrument provides a means for assessing the type of follower and allows leaders and followers alike to highlight specific areas for future development. Kelley provides a 20-item 2 dimensional measure which assesses the activity level of followers as well as the follower’s propen- sity for independent thinking. The scale consists of 10 items which address the follower activity level construct and 10 items which address the independent thinking construct. This instru- ment is a self report measure by which followers answer questions based on frequencies utilizing a seven point Likert scale ranging from 0-Rarely, 3-Occasionally, to 6-Almost Always (See Figure 3 below for Kelley’s Measure).

Once the survey is completed, scores for each di- mension are summed and categorized (See Fig- ure 4 for Typology/Score relationships). The first category, Kelley’s ‘effective’ followers, consists of those who score high on each dimension (greater than 40 for both dimensions). At the other end of the spectrum, the ‘sheep’ are those who score low on both dimensions (less than 20 for both dimensions). In the middle are the ‘survivors’, who have a mid-range score for both dimensions (between 20 and 40 for both dimensions). The ‘alienated’ followers are those who score high on the independent thinking dimension and low on the activity dimension (greater than 40 for independent thinking; less than 20 for activity). In contrast to the alienated followers, the ‘yes- people’ are those who score high on the activity level scale and low on the independent thinking scale (greater than 40 for activity; less than 20 for independent thinking).

While this scale has no published analysis of validity, leaders who utilize such an instrument will provide themselves with a grounded means of analysis of followers by which to categorize followers when compared to no measurable anal- ysis at all. The use of measurement scales, such as Kelley’s Followership Questionnaire, in conjunc-

Who Are We Leading? Identifying Effective Followers: A Review of Typologies

International Journal of the Academic Business World 15

Instructions: For each statement, please use the scale below to indicate the extent to which the statement describes you. Think of a specific but typical followership situation and how you acted.

Rarely Occasionally Almost Always

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

___1. Does your work help you fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is important to you?

___2. Are your personal work goals aligned with the organization’s priority goals?

___3. Are you highly committed to and energized by your work and organization, giving them your best ideas and performance?

___4. Does your enthusiasm also spread to and energize your co-workers?

___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 organizations priority goals?

___6. Do you actively develop a distinctive competence in those critical activities so that you become more valuable to the leader and the organization?

___7. When starting a new job or assignment, do you promptly build a record of successes in tasks that are important to the leader?

___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?

___9. Do you take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond your job?

___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?

___11. Do you independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute significantly to the leader’s or the organization’s goals?

___12. Do you try to solve the tough problems (technical or organizational), rather than look to the leader to do it for you?

___13. Do you help out other co-workers, making them look good, even when you don’t get any credit?

___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?

___15. Do you understand the leader’s needs, goals, and constraints, and work hard to help meet them?

___16. Do you actively and honestly own up to your strengths and weaknesses rather than put off evalua- tion?

___17. Do you make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of the leader’s decision rather than just doing what you are told?

___18. When the leader asks you to do something that runs contrary to your professional or personal prefer- ences, do you say “no” rather than “yes”?

___19. Do you act on your own ethical standards rather than the leader’s or group’s standards?

___20. Do you assert your views on important issues, even, though it might mean conflict with your group reprisals from the leader?

Key: Activity Items: 2,3,4,6,7,8,9,10,13,15 Independent Thinking Items: 1,5,11,12,14,16,17,18,19,20

FIguRe 3: Kelley’s FolloweRsHIp QuesTIonnaIRe as publIsHed In

Kelley (1992) “THe poweR oF FolloweRsHIp”

Brandon R. Kilburn

16 Spring 2010 (Volume 4 Issue 1)

tion with the respective typologies allows leaders to predict variance among specified constructs based on given criteria (Doty and Glick, 1994). Thus proposition two is posited.

Proposition 2: Leaders who are able to gather measurable data on specific fol- lower characteristics will be better equipped to categorize followers.

FIguRe 4 Typology/sCoRe RelaTIonsHIp

Typology Activity

Level Score

Independent Thinking

Score Effective High High Passive Low Low Survivors Mid Mid Alienated Low High Yes People High Low Note: High = Greater than 40 Mid = Between 20 and 40 Low = Less than 20

Implications

Implications for leaders may arise in their abil- ity to use the scale to identify followers who pos- sess desirable characteristics for a particular role. Leaders who recognize these different types of followers may be better equipped when trying to mold and shape followers. The instrument may be especially useful to leaders who are not strong- ly linked to an organization or who have weak ties to followers. This may enable the leader to iden- tify key followers with whom to begin building relationships. In the case of new employees, this scale might enable leader to assess the leadership/ followership potential of new hires whose perfor- mance level has not yet been established. From an upper management perspective, this scale may help to identify future candidates for leadership positions. Combining the followership score with a performance appraisal may provide a great tool for assessing future leadership potential.

Future Research

Since the followership phenomenon has received little attention over the years, numerous avenues remain open for future research. A starting point for future research concerning the current work would be a validity assessment of Kelley’s measure. Currently, there has been no evidence shown for the validity of the measure. While other tools by which to measure followers are non-existent, this measure does offer some means of structure for assessing and categorizing follow- ers. Evidence of validity for this measure would reinforce its usefulness as a tool for categorizing followers.

Since this measure is highly subject to self-report bias, future research should address the possibil- ity of modifying the instrument to gain a 360° perspective of followers. With slight alterca- tions, the scale could utilize evaluations from peer groups, superiors, non-biased observers in conjunction with the self report to gain greater perspective and accuracy when classifying fol- lowers. Along with adding additional perspec- tive outside the self-repot, leaders might conduct a comparative analysis of followership scores with more objective criteria derived from orga- nizational records. These objective criteria may include but are not limited to performance ap- praisals, attendance records, work history, etc. Leaders might assess other relative criteria by which to help determine what the ideal charac- teristics of followers are for their unique leader- ship situation.

Conclusion

Realizing that followers contribute largely to the success of leaders is essential to the study of leadership. Research that recognizes these differ- ent types of followers and attempts to examine what causes followers to adhere to a specific fol- lower class may better equip leaders when trying to mold effective followers. By utilizing these typologies, leaders my better understand their followers which may allow more precise action and decision making skills for the leader. Thus, a greater understanding of followers equals a more informed leader creating a more effective leader. While the cyclical nature of the leader follower

Who Are We Leading? Identifying Effective Followers: A Review of Typologies

International Journal of the Academic Business World 17

relationship continues into perpetuity, it is not without followers that leaders exit and not with- out leaders that followers have a purpose.

References

Blake, R. and Mouton, J (1985). The managerial grid III. Houston, TX: Gulf

Chaleff, I. (2003). The Courageous Follower. San Fransisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Doty, H. and Glick, W. (1994) Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward im- proved understanding and modeling. Acad- emy of Management review, Vol. 19. No.2. pp.230-251.

Hollander, E. and Offerman, L. (1990). “Power and leadership in organizations,” American Psychologist, 45. pp. 179-189.

Hollander, E. and Webb, W. (1955). “Leadership, followership and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50. pp.163-167.

Homans, G. (1961). Social Behavior: Its elemen- tary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace.

Hughes, R., Ginnett, R., and Curphy, G. (1996). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experi- ence. 2nd ed. Irwin.

Kellerman, B. (2007). “What every leader needs to know about followers”. Harvard Business Review, December. 84-91.

Kelley, R. (1988). “In Praise of Followers,” Har- vard Business Review, November-December. 142-148.

Kelley, R. (1992). The Power of Followership, Cur- rency, 1st ed.

Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (1987). The Lead- ership Challenge: How to Get E x t r a o r d i - nary Things Done in Organizations. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meindl, J. and Ehrlich, S. (1987). “The Romance of Leadership and the Evaluation of O r - ganizational Performance.” Academy of Man- agement Journal, 30. pp.90-109.

Offerman, L. (2004). “When Followers Become Toxic,” Harvard Business Review, 82. pp.54- 60.

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organizations. 5thed. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Zaleznik, A. (1965). “The Dynamics of Subordi- nacy”. Harvard Business Review, May-June.

Copyright of International Journal of the Academic Business World is the property of JW Press and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.