Leadership Activity

unitviiiarticle2.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Leadership Activity

Introduction For too long, leadership studies have been leader-cen- tered with little attention paid to the roles of followers in the leadership process. While the term leader has

R E L A T I O N S H I P B E T W E E N

M I D D L E M A N A G E R S ’

T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L

L E A D E R S H I P A N D E F F E C T I V E

F O L L O W E R S H I P B E H A V I O R S

I N O R G A N I Z A T I O N S

IBUKUN D. ALEGBELEYE AND ERIC K. KAUFMAN

Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA , USA

In the current study, four hypotheses that predicted positive relationships between transformational lead-

ership behaviors and effective followership behaviors were proposed. Data were collected from 100 mid-

dle managers across the United States. Multiple regression results showed signifi cant positive relationships

between transformational leadership behaviors and effective followership behaviors, after controlling for

age, sex, race, educational level, tenure with current organization, and tenure with current supervisor.

However, the transformational leadership behavior of Idealized Infl uence was not signifi cantly related to

the effective followership behavior of Building Trust , after controlling for demographics. The fi ndings have

important implications for leaders, followers, leadership educators, organizations, and researchers.

been glamorized, the term follower has been associated with passiveness, subservience, and lack of imagina- tion (Agho, 2009 ). However, follower-centric leader- ship scholars have argued that while leader-follower

Correspondence: Ibukun D. Alegbeleye, Virginia Tech, 202 Litton-Reaves Hall (Mail Code 0343), 175 W. Campus Drive,

Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Figure 1 Research framework

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 7

roles are distinct, leaders and followers constantly switch between these roles (Baker, 2007 ; Crossman & Crossman, 2011 ). Agho ( 2009 ) suggested that many employees, especially middle-management employees, often switch between leader-follower behaviors. In a study of the relationship between leader and fol- lower characteristics at healthcare organizations in the United States, Baker, Mathis, and Stites-Doe ( 2011 ) found signifi cant relationships between selected exem- plary leadership behaviors and eff ective followership behaviors. However, there appears to be a gap in the literature with regards to the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors (TLB) and eff ective followership behaviors (EFB). Consequently, the current study explored the relationship between middle managers ’ TLBs and EFBs.

The framework guiding the current study has been presented in Figure 1 . To eff ectively approach and frame the current study, it is important to con- sider prior literature on the key variables: TLBs and EFBs.

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P

B E H AV I O R S

Bass ( 1985 ) conceptualized the model of trans- formational leadership as consisting of four behaviors: (a) charisma, (b) inspirational leadership, (c) individ- ualized consideration, and (d) intellectual stimulation. Bass and Avolio ( 1990 ) later developed the full range leadership model (FRLM), which comprises of three components: (a) laissez-faire, (b) transactional, and (c) transformational leadership. Laissez-faire leader- ship is a hands-off approach to leadership and has been tagged by many as no-leadership (Yukl, 1999 ). Transactional leadership is a business approach to leadership, whereby the leader rewards followers ’ per- formance based on meeting expectations (Bass, Avo- lio, Jung, & Berson, 2003 ). Transactional leadership behaviors include passive management by exception, active management by exception, and contingent rewards (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999 ). Th e third com- ponent of the FRLM is transformational leadership. While transactional leadership is based on meeting

8 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

expectations, transformational leadership is premised on infl uencing followers to perform above and beyond their capabilities (Wang, Oh, Courtright, & Colbert, 2011 ). According to Avolio et al. ( 1999 ), TLBs include individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, idealized infl uence (attrib- uted), and idealized infl uence (behavior).

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S H I P B E H AV I O R S

Th e fi rst theory on followership has been attributed to Kelley ( 1988 ), who classifi ed followers into fi ve styles (i.e., passive, alienated, conformist, exemplary, and pragmatist), along two major dimensions: (a) engage- ment, and (b) dependence and critical thinking. According to Kelley ( 1988 ), both passive and alien- ated followers engage passively. However, while passive followers think uncritically and are always dependent on leaders for direction, alienated followers can think independently and critically (Kelley, 1988 ). On the contrary, conformists and exemplary followers engage actively; while conformists think uncritically and are always dependent on leaders, exemplary followers think independently and critically (Kelley, 1992 ). Finally, there are pragmatists who do not commit to any one style and can switch between behaviors to match leaders ’ expectations (Kelley, 2008 ).

According to Kelley ( 1988 ), only exemplary fol- lowers could be considered eff ective followers. Eff ec- tive followers make their leaders better by contributing innovative ideas and actively questioning leaders ’ rationale in decision making (Kelley, 2008 ; Whitlock, 2013 ). Effective followers are not afraid to oppose their leaders ’ views and are motivated by their desire to be eff ective followers (Kelley, 2008 ). Many studies have adopted Kelley ’ s model to measure followership behaviors (Favara, 2009 ; Gatti, Ghislieri, & Cortese, 2017 ; Novikov, 2016 ). Since Kelley ’ s ( 1988 ) theory, emerging theories and conceptual models on follow- ership have been sparse. Nonetheless, Chaleff ( 1995 ) developed a courageous followership conceptual model that identifi ed fi ve courageous followership behaviors, which include: (a) courage to assume responsibility, (b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (d) courage to participate in transformation, and (e) courage to take moral action (Chaleff , 2008 ), while acknowledging that followers should support their leaders, challenged the

notion that followers are always subservient to their leaders. Chaleff ( 2015 ) argued that courageous fol- lowers intelligently disobey their leaders whenever they are asked to do what is wrong. Th e idea of increased responsibility of followers has led many leadership researchers to describe followers in more active terms, such as collaborators and partners (Crossman & Cross- man, 2011 ; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014 ).

Going beyond semantics, Potter and Rosenbach ( 2006 ) developed a conceptual model for effec- tive followership that is based on the concept of increased responsibility and participation of followers. According to the model, followers can operate in one of four styles: (a) subordinate, (b) politician, (c) con- tributor, and (d) partner. Among these four styles, only partner is considered an eff ective followership style. Moreover, Pittman, Rosenbach, and Potter ( 1998 ) identifi ed eight EFBs that could be classifi ed along two dimensions: (a) work performance, and (b) rela- tionship building. Th e work performance dimension includes four followership behaviors: (a) doing the job, (b) embracing change, (c) self as a resource, and (d) working with others (Pittman et al., 1998 ). Similarly, the relationship building dimension includes four fol- lowership behaviors: (a) building trust, (b) courageous communication, (c) identifying with the leader, and (d) negotiating diff erences (Pittman et al., 1998 ).

In the current study, four EFBs were selected for analysis. The four behaviors comprise two perfor- mance-related behaviors (i.e., embracing change and working with others) and two relationship-related behaviors (i.e., building trust and identifying with leaders). Th e four EFBs were selected because they were hypothesized to correlate with TLBs based on the leadership literature.

R E L AT I O N S H I P B E T W E E N

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P A N D

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S H I P B E H AV I O R S

Leader-follower roles are fl exible: one can operate as a leader as well as a follower at the same time (Baker, 2007 ; Chaleff, 2008 ; Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009 ; Kellerman, 2013 ). Employees, especially middle-man- agement staff , often switch between leader-follower roles in organizations (Baker et al., 2011 ; Nielsen & Cleal, 2011 ). Baker ( 2007 ) suggested the leadership

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 9

and followership behaviors needed to perform leader- follower roles are distinct yet overlapping. Moreover, leadership researchers have claimed that followership is foundational to leadership (e.g., Agho, 2009 ). Th e statement, he who must be a good leader must fi rst be a good follower, has become a catchphrase among leadership scholars, which suggests a positive relation- ship between leadership and followership behaviors within individuals (Agho, 2009 ).

While many studies have explored the relation- ship between leadership and followership behaviors between individuals (e.g., managers and employees), there has been little research published on the rela- tionship between leadership and followership behav- iors within individuals. One exception is Baker et al. ’ s ( 2011 ) study of healthcare industry workers, which found a signifi cant relationship between exemplary leadership behaviors (as conceptualized by Kouzes & Posner, 2006 ) and EFBs. Among other results, Baker et al. ( 2011 ) found that followers who reported hav- ing exemplary leadership behavior of challenging the process also had EFB of doing the job . Also, Baker et al. ( 2011 ) found that followers who reported having exemplary leadership behavior of enabling others to act also had EFB of working with others . However, there is a gap in the literature regarding the relationship between an individual ’ s TLBs (as conceptualized by the FRLM) and EFBs. Consequently, there is a need to consider the alignment of EFBs with the full range leadership model. Based on related literature, four hypotheses were posited.

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S A N D

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S A R E P U R P O S E 

D R I V E N

According to Bass et al. ( 2003 ), a transformational leader outlines a clear vision for followers through inspirational motivation . A transformational leader is enthusiastic about the vision, purpose, and goals of the organization and presents them in a way that is compelling to followers (Avolio et al., 1999 ). Further- more, transformational leaders build consensus with their followers because they recognize that a compel- ling vision is one that is shared by followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2006 ). While transformational leaders do not compromise their visions or goals, they are willing

to accept followers ’ input, knowing fully well that fol- lowers would be more committed to a vision they help construct (Kouzes & Posner, 2006).

Eff ective followers, on the other hand, identify with their leader by supporting the vision of their leader (Potter & Rosenbach, 2006 ). Effective followers support their leader ’ s vision through devoted work engagements (Zhu, Avolio, & Walumbwa, 2009 ). However, before executing a vision, eff ective followers ensure they have a clear understanding of the vision, off er alternative ideas when necessary, reconcile diff er- ences, and ultimately internalize the vision (Pittman et al., 1998 ). Eff ective followers are as committed as their leaders in achieving the vision; it is no longer the leader ’ s vision but rather the shared vision of both the leader and follower. Eff ective followers see them- selves as partners in vision and are aware that their leader ’ s success is also their success (Kelley, 2008 ; Pit- tman et al., 1998 ). Accordingly, it was hypothesized that middle managers who reported having the TLB of inspirational motivation would be more likely to have the EFB of identifying with the leader (Hypothesis 1).

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S A N D

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S B U I L D T R U S T

I N OT H E R S

Bass et al. ( 2003 ) posited that transformational leaders have idealized infl uence on followers. Transformational leaders lead with a higher purpose by setting high moral values for themselves, while considering the ethical aspect of decisions (Avolio & Bass, 1995 ). By so doing, transformational leaders earn the respect and trust of their followers, thereby making them role models to their followers (Avolio et al., 1999 ; Avolio & Bass, 1995 ).

Similarly, eff ective followers ’ superior contributions and commitment to tasks naturally make them role models for their colleagues (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, & Bullock, 2009 ). Eff ective followers accept their roles as followers, act with integrity, and consis- tently look for opportunities to build the trust of their colleagues as well as their leaders (Potter & Rosen- bach, 2006 ). Consequently, it was hypothesized that middle managers who reported having the TLB of ideal- ized infl uence behavior would be more likely to have the EFB of building trust (Hypothesis 2).

10 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S A N D

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S E M B R A C E

C H A N G E

According to the model of transformational leader- ship, transformational leaders use intellectual stim- ulation to challenge followers to be innovative and creative (Bass et al., 2003 ; Sosik, 2006 ). Moreover, transformational leaders encourage followers to con- tribute to discussions and consider alternative ways of solving a problem (Kouzes & Posner, 2006 ).

Alternatively, Kelley ( 1992 ) posited that eff ective followers are innovative and independent critical thinkers. However, with innovation comes uncer- tainty and change that many followers are not pre- pared for; in fact, many followers resist change and would rather persist with proven methods (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009 ). Effective followers— antitheses of those who resist change—do not only embrace change, but they also anticipate it and con- tinually look for ways to improve (Pittman et al., 1998 ). Eff ective followers are also agents of change and usually spend time explaining to their colleagues why and how things could be done diff erently (Baker, 2007 ). Th us, in the current study, it was hypothesized that middle managers who reported having the TLB of intellectual stimulation would be more likely to have the EFB of embracing change (Hypothesis 3).

T R A N S F O R M AT I O N A L L E A D E R S A N D

E F F E C T I V E F O L L OW E R S C O A C H A N D

D E V E L O P P E O P L E

Transformational leaders apply individualized consid- eration when working with followers, teaching, and mentoring them (Bass et al., 2003 ). Transformational leaders realize that no two followers are the same in terms of needs and abilities, and accordingly align their eff orts to followers ’ specifi c needs, in a bid to helping them solve their challenges (Avolio & Bass, 1995 ).

Similarly, the ability and desire of eff ective followers to work cooperatively and collaboratively with col- leagues make their colleagues come to them with their problems (Pittman et al., 1998 ). As a result, eff ective followers know their colleagues on a personal level and can teach and coach them through their problems (Pittman et al., 1998 ; Potter & Rosenbach, 2006 ). Subsequently, it was hypothesized that middle man-

agers who reported having the TLB of individualized consideration would be more likely to have the EFB of working with others (Hypothesis 4).

Method P R O C E D U R E S A N D S A M P L E

To investigate the four hypotheses, a cross-sectional study of transformational leadership and EFBs of mid- dle management employees across the United States was carried out. Th e inclusion criteria required par- ticipants to be: (a) a middle management employee (i.e., employees that have at least one superior and one subordinate) that is currently employed in the United States, and (b) at least 18 years old. Moreover, a popu- lation of middle managers was particularly suitable for investigating the hypotheses in the current study, since middle managers ’ job duties necessitate them to switch between leadership and followership behaviors in their organizations (Baker et al., 2011 ). Qualtrics Research Service sourced, advertised, and recruited participants that fi t the study criteria. Institutional Review Board approval was received before engaging in the study. Before completing the survey, participants were assured of confi dentiality and anonymity. Research participants were not directly compensated by the researchers in the current study; however, participants may have been compensated by Qualtrics Research Service.

A total sample of 139 middle managers completed the survey; 37 survey responses were screened out because respondents had used less than the stipulated 5 minutes required to complete the survey, and two survey responses were removed due to missing data. Th e fi nal sample included 100 middle management employees across the United States.

Respondents reported an average age of 40.8 years, and have been with their current organization for an average of 100.5 months (approximately 8 years). Respondents reported they have been with their current supervisor for an average of 49.2 months (approximately 4 years). Seventy-one percent of respondents reported they were females, while 29% reported they were males. Sixty-nine percent of respon- dents identifi ed as White Americans; 10% as Black or African American; 8% as American Indian or Alaska Native; 8% as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino; and 5%

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 11

as Asian American. Forty-seven percent reported hav- ing a bachelor ’ s degree or higher. Th e predominant areas of work included retail trade (18%), health care or social assistance (15%), educational services (8%), construction (7%), and fi nance or insurance (7%).

M E A S U R E S

Transformational Leadership Behaviors Instrument

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ- 5X), developed by Avolio and Bass ( 1995 ), was used to measure TLBs. Sixteen items were used from the MLQ-5X to measure four TLBs (i.e., Idealized Infl u- ence Behavior, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration). Sam- ple items rated by participants included: As a leader, I talk optimistically about the future and As a leader, I spend time teaching and coaching . Th e MLQ-5X instru- ment uses a fi ve-point scale ranging from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( frequently, if not always ). In prior research, the MLQ-5X yielded a Cronbach ’ s alpha above 0.70 for all the scales (Avolio et al., 1999 ), and the instrument was also well validated in the literature (Avolio et al., 1999 ; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995 ; Muenjohn & Arm- strong, 2008 ). Nonetheless, a confi rmatory factor anal- ysis (CFA), using AMOS 25 software, was conducted in the current study to confi rm the factor structure of the MLQ-5X. Th e initial CFA result was not sat- isfactory. As per the modifi cation indices, one redun- dant item was deleted from intellectual stimulation scale to improve the fi t indices. Th e fi nal CFA result from the remaining 15 items suggest a satisfactory fi t ( χ 2 = 135.85, p < .01, df = 83, comparative fi t index [CFI] = .93, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .91, standard- ized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .06).

Eff ective Followership Behaviors Instrument

The Performance and Relationship Questionnaire (PRQ), developed by Rosenbach, Pittman, and Pot- ter ( 1996 ), was used to measure EFBs. In the current study, four EFB scales were used, which include: (a) building trust, (b) identifying with leaders, (c) embracing change, and (d) working with others. Sam- ple items included: Has a clear sense of what is impor- tant from the leader ’ s perspectives , and I easily adapt to change to meet new challenges . Initially, each scale was measured with fi ve items (making a total of 20 items)

using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( almost never ) to 5 ( always ). Baker ( 2006 ) validated the PRQ and reported Cronbach ’ s alphas ranging from 0.56 to 0.66. A CFA, using AMOS 25 software, was con- ducted to confi rm how well the model fi t the data. Th e initial CFA result suggested the model fi t was not satisfactory. To improve the model, items that had very low or negative factor loadings were deleted: two items were deleted from the embracing change scale, one item from working with others , and one item from identifying with the leader . Th e items deleted were similar to those removed by Baker ( 2006 ) in the modifi ed version of the PRQ. Moreover, as per the modifi cation indices, one redundant item was deleted from embracing change scale to improve the fi t indices. Th e fi nal CFA results from the remaining 15 items suggest a satisfactory fi t ( χ 2 = 134.44, p < .01, df = 83, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, SRMR = .06).

Control Variables

Leadership researchers have always been interested in the relationship between sex and leadership behaviors (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003 ). While many leadership scholars argue that sex has little (if any) association with leadership behaviors (Oster- berg, 1996 ; Powell, 1990 ; Shannon, 2019 ), there is support for the notion that women exhibit more TLBs than men (Eagly et al., 2003 ). Boatwright and For- rest ( 2000 ) found other descriptive variables such as age, educational level, and organizational tenure to be related to follower ’ s preference for leadership behaviors. Tenure with supervisor and race/ethnicity have also been identifi ed as important control variables in lead- ership research (Baker et al., 2011 ; Gatti et al., 2017 ). Baker et al. ( 2011 ) suggested these variables might be as important to followership as they are to leadership, since followership and leadership exist together in the same space. In summary, the control variables in the current study included the demographic variables of age, sex, race, educational level, tenure with current organization, and tenure with current supervisor.

A N A LY S I S

To begin with, a CFA, using AMOS 25 software, was conducted to provide support for the model fi t of the PRQ and MLQ-5X. Afterward, a Pearson product–

12 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

moment correlation was conducted to test the rela- tionships between all variables. A multiple regression analysis was then conducted to test the hypotheses of the current study. A multiple regression analysis was chosen because of its ability to: (a) control for demographic variables, and (b) account for the pro- portion of variance caused in the outcome variables. Th e outcome variables included four EFBs: (a) identi- fying with the leader, (b) building trust, (c) embracing change, and (d) working with others. Th e predictor variables included four TLBs: (a) inspirational moti- vation, (b) idealized infl uence behavior, (c) intellec- tual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration.

Results Th e results were organized into three parts: (a) explor- atory factor analysis (EFA) and CFA to test for common bias; (b) results of the correlation between demographics, TLBs and EFBs; and (c) results of hypotheses testing.

PA RT 1 : E FA A N D C FA

Since the ratings of followership and leadership behav- iors were collected from the same source (i.e., middle managers), there was the possibility of common source bias (Charoensap, Virakul, Senasu, & Ayman, 2019 ). To reduce the likelihood of a common source variance, Harman ’ s single factor test was conducted to see if a one- factor solution would explain a signifi cant proportion of the variance in the data (Podsakoff , MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff , 2003 ). Consequently, an EFA, using SPSS 25, was conducted to see if a single factor would emerge. Th e EFA result showed that a one-factor solution was inadequate, as a one-factor solution only explained only 33% of the variance in the data. To further test if a sin- gle-factor model would fi t the data, CFA using AMOS 25 was conducted. Th e CFA result suggested a poor fi t ( χ 2 = 1,130.45, p < .01, df = 405, CFI = .53, TLI = .50, SRMR = .16), which indicated the data was likely not aff ected by common source variance.

PART 2: RESULTS OF THE CORRELATION

BETWEEN DEMOGRAPHICS, TLB, AND EFB

As shown in Table 1 , there was a signifi cant negative relationship between sex and EFB of Building Trust , r (98) = −0.25, p < .05, which suggested females tend

to exhibit signifi cantly higher levels of Building Trust behavior than males.

In addition, there was a signifi cant negative rela- tionship between the sex and EFB of Working with Others , r (98) = −0.37, p < .01, which suggested females tend to exhibit signifi cantly higher levels of Working with Others behavior than males.

Other demographic variables were not correlated with transformational leadership and EFBs. While there were correlations among some control variables, they were not interpreted as they failed to off er any signifi cance to the current study.

Part 3: Results of Hypotheses Tests

In hypothesis 1, it was predicted that middle man- agers who reported having the TLB of Inspirational Motivation would be more likely to have the EFB of Identifying with the Leader . As shown in Table 2 , the TLB of Inspirational Motivation ( β = 0.29, p < .01) was positively related to the EFB of Identifying with the Leader , after controlling for age, sex, race, educational level, tenure with the current organization, and tenure with current supervisor. Hence, hypothesis 1 was sup- ported. Moreover, the TLB of Inspirational Motivation explained 11% of variance in the EFB of Identifying with the Leader , R 2 = 0.11, F (1, 98) = 2.94, p < .01.

In hypothesis 2, it was predicted that middle man- agers who reported having the TLB of Idealized Infl u- ence Behavior would be more likely to have the EFB of Building Trust . As shown in Table 2 , the TLB of Ide- alized Infl uence Behavior ( β = 0.163, p > .05) was not signifi cantly related to the EFB of Building Trust , after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, tenure with the current organization, and tenure with current supervisor. Th us, the analysis failed to provide support for hypothesis 2.

In hypothesis 3, it was predicted that middle man- agers who reported having the TLB of Intellectual Stimulation would be more likely to have the EFB of Embracing Change . As shown in Table 2 , the TLB of Intellectual Stimulation ( β = 0.283, p < .01) was positively related to the EFB of Embracing Change , after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educa- tional level, tenure with the current organization, and tenure with current supervisor. Th erefore, hypothesis 3 was supported. Moreover, the TLB of Intellectual

T a b

le 1

S u

m m

a ry

o f

C o

rr e la

ti o

n s,

M e a n

s, S

ta n

d a rd

D e v ia

ti o

n s,

a n

d R

e li

a b

il it

ie s

o f

V a ri

a b

le s

V A

R a

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

A g

R ac

e 0 .0

Se x

0 .1

6 .2

5 *

Ed u

0 .1

4 − 0 .0

3 0 .0

Em p

.4 2 **

0 .0

4 0 .1

5 0

.0 8

Te n

.2 5 *

0 .0

4 0 .1

3 0

.0 8

.4 1

IM − 0 .0

4 0 .1

2 − 0 .0

7 0

.1 8

0 .0

5 − 0

.0 6

IIB 0 .0

6 0 .0

9 − 0 .0

7 0

.1 9

0 .1

3 − 0

.0 1

.7 3

IS − 0 .0

4 0 .0

6 − 0 .1

4 0

.0 4

0 .0

5 − 0

.0 5

.7 2

** .6

8 **

IC − 0 .0

2 0 .0

8 − 0 .1

5 0

.1 5

0 .0

9 − 0

.0 8

.7 6

** .6

6 **

.7 7 **

IL 0 .0

1 − 0 .0

4 − 0 .1

6 0 .1

8 0 .0

8 −

0 .1

2 .3

4 **

.2 4 *

.2 5 *

.2 3 *

B T

− 0 .0

7 − 0 .0

3 − .2

5 *

0 .1

3 0 .0

5 −

0 .0

6 .3

6 **

.2 2 *

.3 1 **

.2 8 **

.7 4 **

EC − 0 .1

3 − 0 .0

1 − 0 .0

7 0 .0

1 0 .0

4 .1

9 .0

4 .2

9 **

.2 3 *

.5 2 **

.6 2 **

W O

− 0 .0

7 .0

4 3

− 0 .3

7 **

0 .0

7 0

.0 5

− 0

.0 3

.3 4

** .2

1 *

.3 5 **

.3 7 **

.6 3 *

.7 7 **

.6 6 **

M ea

n 4 0 .8

2 2 .3

3 1 .2

9 4

.1 0

1 0 0

.4 6

4 9

.2 2

4 .1

0 4

.0 5

4 .1

3 4 .3

0 3 .9

6 4 .2

6 4 .0

7 4 .2

1 2 .0

1 0 .9

2 0 .4

6 1

.5 1

8 3

.3 1

4 7

.0 0

0 .7

6 0

.7 6

0 .7

0 0 .7

2 0 .6

9 0 .7

4 0 .6

0 .7

9 0 .7

1 0 .7

4 0 .7

9 0 .7

8 0 .8

2 0 .6

7 0 .8

N ot

e . n

= 1

0 0

. α =

C ro

n b

ac h

’ s a

lp h

a; A

g e

= a

g e

in m

o n

th s;

B T =

b u ild

in g

t ru

st ;

EC =

e m

b ra

ci n

g c

h an

g e;

E d

u =

e d

u ca

ti o n

al le

ve l;

Em p

= e

m p

lo ym

en t

te n

u re

w it

h o

rg an

iz at

io n

in m

o n

th s;

I C

= in

d iv

id u al

iz ed

n si

d er

at io

n ;

IIB =

in d

iv id

u al

iz ed

in flu

en ce

b eh

av io

r; I L

= id

en ti

fy in

g w

it h

le ad

er ;

IM =

in sp

ir at

io n

al m

o ti

va ti

o n

; IS

= in

te lle

ct u al

s ti

m u la

ti o n

; R ac

e =

r ac

e/ et

h n

ic it

y; S

ex =

s ex

; Te

n =

t en

u re

w it

h s

u p

er vi

so r

m o n

th s;

W O

= w

o rk

in g

w it

h o

th er

s; V

A R =

v ar

ia b

le s.

a C

o d

in g

w as

a s

fo llo

w s:

S ex

: 1

= “

Fe m

al e,

” 2

= “

M al

e, ”

Ed u ca

ti o n

: 1

= “

Le ss

t h

an h

ig h

s ch

o o l d

eg re

e, ”

2 =

“ H

ig h

s ch

o o l g

ra d

u at

e, ”

3 =

“ So

m e

co lle

g e

b u t

n o d

eg re

e, ”

4 =

“ A

ss o ci

at e

d eg

re e

in c

o lle

g e

(2 -y

ea r)

,” 5

= “

B ac

h el

o r ’ s

d eg

re e

in c

o lle

g e

(4 -y

ea r)

,” 6

= “

M as

te r ’ s

d eg

re e,

” 7

= “

D o ct

o ra

l d eg

re e;

” R ac

e/ Et

h n

ic it

y: 1

= “

Sp an

is h

, H

is p

an ic

, o r

La ti

n o ,”

2 =

“ W

h it

e A

m er

ic an

,” 3

= “

B la

ck o

r A

fr ic

A m

er ic

an ,”

4 =

“ A

m er

ic an

I n

d ia

n o

r A

la sk

a N

at iv

e, ”

5 =

“ A

si an

A m

er ic

an ,”

6 =

“ N

at iv

e H

aw ai

ia n

.”

* p <

.0 5 le

ve l.

** p <

.0 1

le ve

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 13

Table 2 Summary of Linear Regression Weights, Standard Error, and t -Value of Transformational Leadership and Effective followership Behaviors

Hypotheses Standardized coeffi cient ( β )

SE t -Value Conclusion

H 1 : Inspirational

motivation →

Identifying with the

leader

0.290 ** 0.104 2.944 Supported

H 2 : Idealized infl uence

behavior →

Building trust

0.163 0.092 1.606 Unsupported

H 3 : Intellectual

stimulation →

Embracing change

0.283 ** 0.107 2.819 Supported

H 4 : Individualized

consideration →

Working with others

0.285 ** 0.093 3.017 Supported

Note . n = 100. ** p < .01 level (two-tailed).

14 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

Stimulation explained 9% of variance in the EFB of Embracing Change , R 2 = 0.09, F (1, 98) = 2.82, p < .01.

In hypothesis 4, it was predicted that middle man- agers who reported having the TLB of Individualized Consideration would be more likely to have the EFB of Working with Others . As shown in Table 2 , the TLB of Individualized Consideration ( β = 0.285, p < .01) was positively related to the EFB of Working with Others , after controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, tenure with the current organization, and tenure with current supervisor. Th us, hypothesis 4 was sup- ported. Th e TLB of Individualized Consideration also explained 13% of variance in EFB of Working with Others , R 2 = 0.13, F (1, 98) = 3.02, p < .01.

Discussion In the current study, four hypotheses were proposed that predicted positive relationships between selected TLBs and EFBs of middle management employees in the United States. Multiple regression results showed support for three of the four hypotheses proposed. Spe- cifi cally, after controlling for age, sex, race, educational level, tenure with the current organization, and tenure with current supervisor, there were signifi cant positive relationships between the following variables: (a) the TLB of Inspirational Motivation and EFB of Identifying

with the Leader ; (b) the TLB of Intellectual Stimulation and EFB of Embracing Change ; (c) the TLB of Individ- ualized Consideration and EFB of Working with Others .

Th e fi ndings were consistent with those of previous research postulating that exemplary leadership behav- iors are positively related to EFBs (Baker et al., 2011 ). Th e positive relationships between transformational leadership and EFBs revealed that transformational leaders may also be eff ective followers and vice-versa. Th e results provided support for conceptual and the- oretical models suggesting leadership and follower- ship roles overlap and can be shared (Agho, 2009 ; Baker, 2007 ). The concept of switching between leadership and followership roles may be especially important in middle management positions, where individuals are acting as leaders to their subordinates while at the same time acting as followers to their superiors (Baker et al., 2011 ; Nielsen & Cleal, 2011 ). Moreover, switching between leadership and follow- ership roles may be evident in a self-managed team setting (McIntyre & Foti, 2013 ). Carson, Tesluk, and Marrone ( 2007 ) argued that team members in self- managed teams are constantly distributing leadership among themselves, switching between leader and fol- lower roles depending on the situation. It then follows that effective team members would be required to eff ectively switch between leadership and followership

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 15

behaviors, knowing when to lead and when to take a step back and follow.

However, the relationship between the TLB of Ide- alized Infl uence and the EFB of Building Trust was not found to be statistically signifi cant: Such non-signifi - cant relationship might suggest that, although leader- follower roles can be said to overlap, they are distinct and may sometimes require unique behaviors that may not be transferable (Chaleff , 2015 ). For example, leaders might fi nd applicable, to a large extent, their learned TLBs when following; however, when faced with certain situations, such leaders may soon real- ize they lack the full range of behaviors required for eff ective followership, which may provide support for follower-centric leadership scholars who recommend that leadership development programs develop a cur- riculum that is particularly designed for followership development (Dixon & Westbrook, 2003 ; Johnson, 2009 ).

Implications The current study has implications for leadership theory, future research in leadership, and leadership practice.

T H E O R E T I C A L I M P L I C AT I O N S

While leadership researchers have always predicted a positive relationship between eff ective leadership and followership behaviors, empirical research testing such relationship has been relatively sparse (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004 ). Moreover, the relationship between leadership and followership behaviors have been mostly explored as a person-to- person phenomenon in the leadership literature—that being the relationship between the leader ’ s leadership behavior and the follower ’ s followership behaviors (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002 ; Dvir & Shamir, 2003 ; Zhu et al., 2009 ). An exception was a study by Baker et al. ( 2011 ), which explored the relationship between leadership and followership behaviors as a within-person phenomenon. However, while Baker et al. ( 2011 ) examined exemplary leadership behav- iors (as conceptualized by Kouzes & Posner, 2006 ), the current study explores TLBs (as conceptualized in the FRLM model, Sosik, 2006 ). Th e current study,

therefore, fi lls a gap in the literature regarding the relationship between transformational leadership and EFBs within individuals.

Also, research, such as the current study, that explores the relationship between transformational leadership and eff ective followership within persons may provide the groundwork for developing a leader- ship-followership theoretical model that fully explains the leadership-followership process within individ- uals. While there are some leadership models (e.g., the leader-member exchange theory, Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ) that account for the leadership-followership process, these models only describe the leadership- followership process as occurring between persons.

I M P L I C AT I O N S F O R F U T U R E R E S E A R C H

Leadership and followership have traditionally been studied separately. However, leadership and follower- ship occur in the same space while deriving meaning from each other (Ford & Harding, 2018 ; Schedlitzki, Edwards, & Kempster, 2018 ). Leader-centric lead- ership scholars have explored the sole effects of transformational leadership on positive organizational outcomes (Zhu et al., 2009 ). Similarly, follower- centric leadership scholars have investigated the sole eff ects of eff ective followership on positive organiza- tional outcomes (Zhu et al., 2009 ). However, there remains a gap in the literature regarding the joint eff ect of transformational leadership and eff ective follower- ship on positive organizational outcomes (Zhu et al., 2009 ). While the current study explored the relation- ship between transformational leadership and eff ective followership, a gap remains regarding their joint eff ect on positive organizational outcomes. Th erefore, future studies should explore both transformational leader- ship and eff ective followership as predictors of positive organizational outcomes.

Moreover, the current study only explored the rela- tionship between one type of leadership behavior (i.e., TLB) and one type of followership behavior (i.e., EFB). However, there are other types of leadership and followership behaviors in the literature. Future research should consider exploring the relationship between other positive forms of leadership (e.g., authentic leadership, Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson, 2008 ) and followership (e.g.,

16 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

courageous followership, Chaleff , 2008 ) that were not examined in the current study.

Lastly, leadership is distributed in self-managed teams, and team members are required to lead and follow at various times during the life cycle of the team (Carson et al., 2007 ). Consequently, it would be interesting to see future research examine the joint eff ect of leadership and followership behaviors of team members on the ability to work eff ectively in teams.

P R A C T I C A L I M P L I C AT I O N S

Th e fi ndings of the current study have implications for how employees work within organizations. Sim- ilarities between leadership and followership behav- iors may help destigmatize followership (Kellerman, 2013 ), while at the same time help employees real- ize that being leaders does not preclude them from being followers (Schedlitzki et al., 2018 ). Such real- ization may help create a cooperative environment while preventing leaders from acting in condescend- ing ways towards their followers (Chaleff, 2008 ). Moreover, employees may begin to operate outside of their offi cial roles and share roles (Baker et al., 2011 ), which may help organizations get more from their employees in terms of creativity and eff ectiveness; such role sharing may simultaneously foster team- work between leaders and followers in organizations (Crossman & Crossman, 2011 ; Dixon & Westbrook, 2003 ).

Moreover, the fi ndings have implications for how organizations carry out human resource development. Today, many organizations enroll their staff in lead- ership training programs that off er only a leadership curriculum (Charoensap et al., 2019 ). However, since the fi ndings suggest that some TLBs may not transfer to eff ective followership, organizations may need to enroll their staff in leadership development programs that off er a leadership-followership curriculum (Foley, 2015 ). Also, it may be useful to leadership educators and individuals involved in leadership development interventions to know that while leadership behav- iors could be transferred to followership, they do not replace them—that knowledge may help generate the impetus needed to develop leadership-followership curriculum across leadership development programs (Johnson, 2009 ).

L I M I TAT I O N S

One potential limitation of the current study is common source bias, since ratings of TLB and EFB were self-reported by respondents (Charoensap et al., 2019 ). However, the results of exploratory and confi r- matory factor analysis showed a single-factor solution was inadequate, thereby reducing the likelihood of a common source aff ecting the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003 ). Nonetheless, it is recommended that future studies collect ratings of TLB and EFB from diff er- ent sources to eliminate the possibility of a common source bias.

Moreover, the current study is cross-sectional, which means it is inappropriate to make causal claims with the fi ndings. Th erefore, it is recommended that future studies adopt a longitudinal approach to explore the relationship between TLBs and EFBs.

Lastly, a potential weakness of the current study is the relatively small sample size which may not ade- quately represent the population (i.e., United States workforce). Consequently, caution should be exer- cised in extrapolating fi ndings.

Conclusion The current study found significant positive rela- tionships between TLBs and EFBs, as three out of four hypothesized relationships were supported. Spe- cifically, the TLB of Inspirational Motivation was positively related to the EFB of Identifying with the Leader ; the TLB of Intellectual Stimulation was posi- tively related to the EFB of Embracing Change ; and the TLB of Individualized Consideration was positively related to the EFB of Working with Others . However, the relationship between the TLB of Idealized Infl u- ence and the EFB of Building Trust was not found to be statistically signifi cant.

In summary, the current study has contributed to the leadership literature by broadening the current knowledge of the relationship between leadership and followership, especially the overlap that exists between leadership and followership behaviors, as well as leader-follower roles in organizations.

References

Agho , A. O. ( 2009 ). Perspectives of senior-level executives on effective followership and leadership . Journal of Leader-

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 17

ship & Organizational Studies , 16 ( 2 ), 159 – 166 . https://doi. org/10.1177/1548051809335360

Avolio , B. J. , & Bass , B. M. ( 1995 ). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diff usion of transformational leadership . Th e Lead- ership Quarterly , 6 ( 2 ), 199 – 218 . https://doi.org/10.1016/1048- 9843(95)90035-7

Avolio , B. J. , Bass , B. M. , & Jung , D. I. ( 1999 ). Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional lead- ership using the multifactor leadership . Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y , 72 ( 4 ), 441 – 462 . https://doi. org/10.1348/096317999166789

Baker , S. D. ( 2006 ). Th e eff ect of leader-follower agreement on team eff ectiveness (Doctoral dissertation). George Washington University.

Baker , S. D. ( 2007 ). Followership: Th e theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct . Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 14 ( 1 ), 50 – 60 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0002831207304343

Baker , S. D. , Mathis , C. J. , & Stites-Doe , S. ( 2011 ). An exploratory study investigating leader and follower characteristics at U.S. health- care organizations . Journal of Managerial Issues , 23 ( 3 ), 341 – 363 .

Bass , B. M. ( 1985 ). Leadership and performance beyond expectations . New York, NY : Free Press .

Bass , B. M. , & Avolio , B. J. ( 1990 ). The implications of transactional and transformational leadership for individual, team, and organizational development . Research in Organizational Change and Development , 4 ( 1 ), 231 – 272 .

Bass , B. M. , Avolio , B. J. , Jung , D. I. , & Berson , Y. ( 2003 ). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership . Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 ( 2 ), 207 – 218 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.207

Blanchard , A. L. , Welbourne , J. , Gilmore , D. , & Bullock , A. ( 2009 ). Followership styles and employee attachment to the orga- nization . Th e Psychologist-Manager Journal , 12 ( 2 ), 111 – 131 . https:// doi.org/10.1080/10887150902888718

Boatwright , K. J. , & Forrest , L. ( 2000 ). Leadership prefer- ences: The influence of gender and needs for connection on workers ’ ideal preferences for leadership behaviors . Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 7 ( 2 ), 18 – 34 . https://doi. org/10.1177/107179190000700202

Bycio , P. , Hackett , R. D. , & Allen , J. S. ( 1995 ). Further assess- ments of Bass ’ s (1985) conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership . Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 ( 4 ), 468 – 478 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.468

Carson , J. B. , Tesluk , P. E. , & Marrone , J. A. ( 2007 ). Shared lead- ership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance . Academy of Management Journal , 50 ( 5 ), 1217 – 1234 . https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.20159921

Chaleff , I. ( 1995 ). Th e courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders . San Francisco, CA : Berrett-Koehler Publishers .

Chaleff , I. ( 2008 ). Creating new ways of following . In D. R. E. Riggio , I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of follow- ership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67 – 87 ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .

Chaleff , I. ( 2015 ). Intelligent disobedience: Doing right when what you ’ re told to do is wrong . Oakland, CA : Berrett-Koehler Publishers .

Charoensap , A. , Virakul , B. , Senasu , K. , & Ayman , R. ( 2019 ). Eff ect of ethical leadership and interactional justice on employee work attitudes . Journal of Leadership Studies , 12 ( 4 ), 7 – 26 . https:// doi.org/10.1002/jls.21574

Crossman , B. , & Crossman , J. ( 2011 ). Conceptualising follower- ship—A review of the literature . Leadership , 7 ( 4 ), 481 – 497 . https:// doi.org/10.1177/1742715011416891

Dionne , S. D. , Yammarino , F. J. , Atwater , L. E. , & Spangler , W. D. ( 2004 ). Transformational leadership and team performance . Journal of Organizational Change Management , 17 ( 2 ), 177 – 193 . https:// doi.org/10.1108/09534810410530601

Dixon , G. , & Westbrook , J. ( 2003 ). Followers revealed . Engineering Management Journal , 15 ( 1 ), 19 – 26 . https://doi.org/10.1080/1042 9247.2003.11415192

Dvir , T. , Eden , D. , Avolio , B. J. , & Shamir , B. ( 2002 ). Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and perfor- mance: A fi eld experiment . Academy of Management Journal , 45 ( 4 ), 735 – 744 . https://doi.org/10.5465/3069307

Dvir , T. , & Shamir , B. ( 2003 ). Follower developmental charac- teristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal fi eld study . Th e Leadership Quarterly , 14 ( 3 ), 327 – 344 . https://doi. org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00018-3

Eagly , A. H. , Johannesen-Schmidt , M. C. , & van Engen , M. L. ( 2003 ). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men . Psychological Bulletin , 129 ( 4 ), 569 – 591 . https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

Favara , L. F. ( 2009 ). Examining followership styles and their relation- ship with job satisfaction and performance (Doctoral dissertation). Northcentral University.

Foley , T. J. ( 2015 ). Followership and student leadership: Exploring the relationship . Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics , 12 ( 4 ), 11 – 23 .

Ford , J. , & Harding , N. ( 2018 ). Followers in leadership theory: Fiction, fantasy and illusion . Leadership , 14 ( 1 ), 3 – 24 . https://doi. org/10.1177/1742715015621372

Gatti , P. , Ghislieri , C. , & Cortese , C. G. ( 2017 ). Relationships between followers ’ behaviors and job satisfaction in a sample of

18 JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls

nurses . PLoS One , 12 ( 10 ), e0185905 . https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0185905

Gr a e n , G . B . , & U h l - Bi e n , M . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Re l a t i o n s h i p - b a s e d a p p ro a c h t o l e a d e r s h i p : De ve l o p m e n t o f l e a d e r - member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective . Th e Leader- ship Quarterly , 6 ( 2 ), 219 – 247 . https://doi.org/10.1016/1048- 9843(95)90036-5

Heifetz , R. , Grashow , A. , & Linsky , M. ( 2009 ). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis . Harvard Business Review , 87 ( 7/8 ), 62 – 69 .

Hurwitz , M. , & Hurwitz , S. ( 2009 ). Th e romance of the follower: Part 1 . Industrial and Commercial Training , 41 ( 2 ), 80 – 86 . https:// doi.org/10.1108/00197850910939117

Johnson , C. E. ( 2009 ). Introducing followership into the leadership classroom: An integrative approach . Journal of Leadership Education , 8 ( 2 ), 20 – 31 .

Kellerman , B. ( 2013 ). Leading questions: The end of lead- ership—Redux . Leadership , 9 ( 1 ), 135 – 139 . https://doi. org/10.1177/1742715012455132

Kelley , R. ( 2008 ). Rethinking followership . In D. R. Riggio , I. Chaleff , & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), Th e art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5 – 16 ). San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass .

Kelley , R. E. ( 1988 ). In praise of followers . Harvard Business Review , 66 ( 6 ), 142 – 148 .

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

Kouzes , J. M. , & Posner , B. Z. ( 2006 ). Th e leadership challenge (Vol. 3 ). San Francisco, CA : Wiley .

McIntyre , H. H. , & Foti , R. J. ( 2013 ). Th e impact of shared leader- ship on teamwork mental models and performance in self-directed teams . Group Processes & Intergroup Relations , 16 ( 1 ), 46 – 57 . https:// doi.org/10.1177/1368430211422923

Muenjohn , D. N. , & Armstrong , P. A. ( 2008 ). Evaluating the struc- tural validity of the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-transactional leadership . Contemporary Management Research , 4 ( 1 ), 3 – 14 . https:// doi.org/10.7903/cmr.704

Nielsen , K. , & Cleal , B. ( 2011 ). Under which conditions do middle managers exhibit transformational leadership behaviors?—An expe- rience sampling method study on the predictors of transformational leadership behaviors . Th e Leadership Quarterly , 22 ( 2 ), 344 – 352 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.009

Novikov , V. ( 2016 ). Followership and performance in acquisition, research, and development organizations . Emerging Leadership Jour- neys , 9 ( 1 ), 9 – 33 .

Osterberg , M. J. ( 1996 ). Gender in supervision: Exaggerating the differences in men and women . The Clinical Supervisor , 14 ( 2 ), 69 – 83 . https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v14n02_06

Pittman , T. S. , Rosenbach , W. E. , & Potter , E. H. III ( 1998 ). Fol- lowers as partners: Taking the initiative for action . In D. W. E. Rosenbach , & R. L. Taylor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in leadership ( 4th ed. 107 – 120 ). Boulder, CO : Westview Press .

Podsakoff , P. M. , MacKenzie , S. B. , Lee , J.-Y. , & Podsakoff , N. P. ( 2003 ). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies . Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 ( 5 ), 879 – 903 . https://doi.org/10.1037/0021- 9010.88.5.879

Potter , E. , & Rosenbach , W. ( 2006 ). Followers as partners: Th e spirit of leadership . In D. W. Rosenbach , & R. Taylor (Eds.), Con- temporary issues in leadership . Boulder, CO : Westview Press .

Powell , G. N. ( 1990 ). One more time: Do female and male man- agers differ? Academy of Management Perspectives , 4 ( 3 ), 68 – 75 . https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1990.4274684

Rosenbach , W. E. , Pittman , T. S. , & Potter III , E. H. ( 1996 ). Performance and relationship questionnaire [Questionnaire] . Unpub- lished instrument. Retrieved from http://www.leadingandfollowing. com/documents/PRQSample.pdf

Schedlitzki , D. , Edwards , G. , & Kempster , S. ( 2018 ). Th e absent follower: Identity construction within organisationally assigned leader–follower relations . Leadership , 14 ( 4 ), 483 – 503 . https://doi. org/10.1177/1742715017693544

Shannon , J. ( 2019 ). Gender diff erences or gendered diff erences: Understanding the power of language in training and research in supervision . International Journal for the Advancement of Coun- selling , 41 ( 4 ), 598 – 608 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-019- 09380-y

Sosik , J. J. ( 2006 ). Full range leadership: Model, research, exten- sions and training . In D. P. J. Burke , & C. Cooper (Eds.), Inspiring leaders (pp. 49 – 82 ). New York, NY : Routledge .

Uhl-Bien , M. , Riggio , R. E. , Lowe , K. B. , & Carsten , M. K. ( 2014 ). Followership theory: A review and research agenda . Th e Leadership Quarterly , 25 ( 1 ), 83 – 104 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j. leaqua.2013.11.007

Walumbwa , F. O. , Avolio , B. J. , Gardner , W. L. , Wernsing , T. S. , & Peterson , S. J. ( 2008 ). Authentic leadership: Development and val- idation of a theory-based measure . Journal of Management , 34 ( 1 ), 89 – 126 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308913

Wang , G. , Oh , I.-S. , Courtright , S. H. , & Colbert , A. E. ( 2011 ). Transformational leadership and performance across cri- teria and levels: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of research . Group & Organization Management , 36 ( 2 ), 223 – 270 . https://doi. org/10.1177/1059601111401017

JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES • Volume 13 • Number 4 • DOI:10.1002/jls 19

Whitlock , J. ( 2013 ). Th e value of active followership . Nursing Man- agement , 20 ( 2 ), 20 – 23 . https://doi.org/10.7748/nm2013.05.20.2.20. e677

Yukl , G. ( 1999 ). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories . Th e Leader- ship Quarterly , 10 ( 2 ), 285 – 305 . https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048- 9843(99)00013-2

Zhu , W. , Avolio , B. J. , & Walumbwa , F. O. ( 2009 ). Moderating role of follower characteristics with transformational leadership and follower work engagement . Group & Organization Management , 34 ( 5 ), 590 – 619 . https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331242

Ibukun D. Alegbeleye is a PhD Candidate and Grad- uate Teaching Scholar in the Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community Education at Virginia Tech, USA, where he currently teaches an undergraduate course titled, “Th e Dynamics of Leadership.” Ibukun holds a

Master of Science degree in Agribusiness Management from Tennessee State University (2016). His research focuses on leader–follower dynamics in teams and orga- nizations. Communications can be directed to ibukun@ vt.edu .

Eric K. Kaufman is a Professor and Extension Specialist in Virginia Tech ’ s Department of Agricultural, Leader- ship, and Community Education, where he coordinates a graduate certificate program in Collaborative Com- munity Leadership and supports an undergraduate minor Leadership and Social Change. Eric holds a Bachelor of Science degree from Th e Ohio State University (2000); both his Master ’ s and his Doctor of Philosophy degrees are from the University of Florida (2004 and 2007). Email [email protected] .

Copyright of Journal of Leadership Studies is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 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.