1. What Makes a Follower?

William E. Rosenbach, Thane S. Pittman and Earl H. Potter III

Much about the nature of leadership has changed over the years, as many of the chapters of this book describe. And while we have seen minor changes in the content of leadership, most of this change has occurred in the context of leadership which is undergoing rapid and turbulent transformational change. The dynamic global economic and political environment, scarcity of resources, market place competition, instantaneous communications, new technologies and a rapidly changing workforce make effective leadership essential in these ambiguous, complex and uncertain times. The people in our workforces are more diverse, multicultural and heterogeneous, more dispersed, demand more collaboration than competition, insist on better interpersonal relationships with their leaders and they have high expectations for what their organizations will do to support them. We have traditionally looked to our leaders to create the plan, define the path and encourage the heart. In times such as these, more thought should be given to involving followers in these critical components of leadership.

Dr. Robert Ginnett has studied airline crews in order to describe the behavior of the most effective pilots in command. Ginnett found that the most effective leaders were those who engaged the entire crew as partners, with the result that each was fully involved in and attentive to the ongoing mission. Moreover, the leader had created an environment in which crew members were enabled to behave as partners, sharing information as they got it, offering alternative perspectives without fear, and actively seeking ways to improve operations at all times.

More thought should be given to the followerwhat good followers might bewhat good followers must be and how to develop good followers? An organization that can succeed with followers who simply do what they are told poses leadership challenges that are different from the challenges of leading a team of creative, engaged followers. Conditions that call for proactive followers call for a particular approach to human capital development and leadership.

Leadership experts have long argued for consultation among leaders and followers when conditions permit, usually when the problem is complex, expertise is widely distributed among the members of a group, and there is time for deliberation. Then, there are the times when the pace of action is fast and orders are called for. The challenge these days is that the tempo of operations has increased in general. It is too easy to believe that every situation is one in which there is no time for consultation and no place for alternative ideas. Yet, the evidence is clear that followers often have information and ideas that are essential to the success of operations. In fact, the failure to bring all perspectives to bear on an operation can have disastrous consequences.

Follower Styles

The most effective followers know that they cannot be fully effective unless they work with both a commitment to high performance and a commitment to developing effective relationships with colleagues (including their supervisor), whose collaboration is essential to success in their own work. These followers are intent on high performance and recognize that they share the responsibility for the quality of the relationship they have with their leaders. Two dimensions (performance initiative and relationship initiative) describe four follower roles that are familiar to organizational leaders: the subordinate, the contributor, the politician, and the partner.

Types of Followers

Subordinate. The subordinate is a follower who does what he or she is toldcompetent at a satisfactory level but not one to whom the organization looks for leadership or to whom challenging assignments are given. We

have seen this follower in traditional assembly line operations. The subordinate keeps a job and may rise in a seniority-driven organization but demonstrates neither an interest in relationships nor a commitment to high performance. The subordinate is the only kind of valued follower in hierarchical organizations that operates only with orders from the top and obedience from the bottom. In organizational settings where this is desired behavior, "good" followers will exhibit these characteristics even when they are fully capable of and even desirous of behaving like individuals described in other quadrants of this analysis. It is also the likely style of a somewhat or completely disaffected follower who is not interested in giving anything extra, believes that high performance will not be recognized and rewarded, or whose job is not one of his or her primary concerns. New followers in an organization may also temporarily adopt this style while they attempt to discover "which way the wind is blowing" in terms of organization culture and expected follower behavior.

Contributor. This type of follower behaves in an exemplary ways, works hard and is known for the quality of his or her work. This person rarely seeks to understand the perspective of the boss, however, and generally waits for direction before turning to new challenges. Although this person is thorough and creative in obtaining the resources, information, and skills that are needed to do the job, the interpersonal dynamics of the workplace are not of particular concern. As a result, the contributor rarely shares her or his expertise and knowledge. These individuals can develop into full partners by gaining skills and perspectives on the relationship initiative dimension. Alternatively, their valued inclinations can be accommodated and their work value maximized by allowing them to focus on where they excel and feel comfortable doing, and by removing or minimizing aspects of the job that call for interpersonal relationships with the supervisor and others. Contributors pose a leadership challenge to develop them into contributing and engaged organization citizens.

Politician. The politician gives more attention to managing relationships than to maximizing performance. This person possesses valuable interpersonal qualities that are often misdirected or misunderstood. Followers such as these are unusually sensitive to interpersonal dynamics and are valuable for their ability to contribute when interpersonal difficulties. They can provide valuable assistance to the leader because they are willing and able to give insights into group relationships. However, often these followers neglect the defined aspects of their jobs in favor of the more relationship-oriented or political aspects of their relationship with the supervisor and others. This is a particular problem when others rely on them for job performance. Politicians can become full partners by focusing on job performance and learning how to balance these two concerns, or they can be accepted as they are and given responsibilities that call primarily for the skills and inclinations they possess. Since politicians often have well developed networks, they can be valuable during times of rapid change, threatening competition and organizational vulnerabilities. Jobs characterized by the dual role of follower and leader often are ideal for the politician.

Partner. Partners are those who have the competence and energy to do the job that they are assigned but who are also attentive to the purpose of the organization. At any time partners understand and share the goals of their leader and use this understanding to focus their own efforts. Such followers seek to master the skills required for their job and maximize their own accomplishments while seeking also to understand their boss's agenda and the strategy for accomplishing that agenda. Partners understand how to get ideas into play when the tempo of operations is high and when it is time to do what they are asked.

The most effective leaders develop their followers as partners by teaching them how to play this role. But not all organizational members are, or need to be, partners. The role of partner is reserved for mature team members who are high performers with the experience and commitment to understand the big picture. It is a role to which all followers can aspire and is not dependent upon rank or position. Leaders and followers who behave as partners make modern organizations work at all times and under all conditions.

The partner is committed to high performance and effective relationships. The energy given to the development of relationships serves the purpose of gaining the kind of understanding that leads to plans and actions that anticipate new directions and contributions that serve unmet needs. Organizations that anticipate and keep pace with change in the global environment are characterized by leaders who encourage partnership and followers who seek to be partners.

Sometimes the best way to staff an organization that will rely on its members' behaving as partners is to hire them. At other times, leaders will need to develop partners from those assigned to the organization. In either case, leaders who have to hire or develop partners need a model to guide their efforts. What follows is such a model.

Figure 6.1: Follower Styles

Follower Behaviors

The four types of followers can be identified by their behavior on the performance initiative dimension and the relationship initiative dimension.

Performance Initiative

Performance initiative refers to the follower's active efforts of a good job. A person who demonstrates a great deal of performance initiative finds ways to improve his or her own performance in the organization, which might include improving skills, sharing resources with team members and trying new strategies. The people at the high end of this scale understand that their future depends on the future of the organization and are not content to simply do what they were asked to do yesterday. At the low end of this scale one finds satisfactory performers, whereas at the high end one finds experts who lead in their fields and whose contributions strengthen the performance of the organization.

To assess this dimension of follower initiative, we need to consider the extent to which the follower thinks of ways to get his or her assigned job done, the extent to which the follower treats himself or herself as a valuable resource, how well the follower works with coworkers, and what view the follower takes toward organizational and environmental change. Followers differ in the extent to which they take positive initiatives in each of the four domains described below:

Doing the Job. Followers vary in the extent to which they strive to be as good as they can be at what they do. At

Politician

Partner

Subordinate

Contributor

High

Relationship Initiative

Low

LowHigh

Performance Initiative

one end of this continuum are the followers who go through the motions, performing the tasks that are assigned to them up to the minimum standards required to keep their jobs, and doing little or no more. At the other end of this continuum, some followers care deeply about the quality of their performance. They set standards for themselves and others that are higher than the minimum prescribed by the organization, and that are focused on effective performance rather than on merely meeting defined standards. For these followers, work is an important and integral part of their lives. They take pride in what they do and apply high personal standards for performance from which they can derive personal satisfaction. They usually have leaders who model behaviors that lead to high commitment to superior job performance and who inspire followers to emulate them.

Working with Others. Another important dimension of follower performance is working with others in the organization. At one extreme is the follower who cannot work well with others and therefore is continually involved in arguments and disputes, irritating everyone in the process. These followers actually interfere with the performance of others in the organization. In contrast, some followers work alone. They do not have difficulties with others, but they do not really work with them either. Their performance is solely dependent on what they themselves do (or so they think). But many followers do take advantage of working with others, to varying degrees. When followers work effectively with others, they are able to balance their own personal interests with the interests of others, discovering a common purpose and working to achieve common goals. That means emphasizing cooperation over competition, finding success in the success of the whole group instead of in self-achievement only. They view their leaders as coaches, mentors and colleagues rather than bosses.

Self as a Resource. Another important aspect of follower performance initiative lies in the extent to which the person treats herself or himself as a valuable but limited resource. Some followers pay little attention to their own well-being, neglecting physical, mental, and emotional health. This may yield some short-term benefits for the organization when the follower is most effective in important ways; in the long run such neglect is likely to lead to burnout or stagnation (depending on the other aspects of follower performance initiative). Followers who will be effective over the long haul recognize that they are their own most valuable resource and take care to maintain their own physical, mental, and emotional health by balancing work and other interests (e.g., family and friends, community activities and relations, physical and nutritional fitness). Leaders play a very important role in helping followers maintain this balance by modeling its importance and supporting followers' efforts to stay healthy and valuable to themselves and the organization.

Embracing Change. The other important dimension of follower initiative is the follower's orientation to change. In many cases a follower's reaction to change is to ignore it or hide from it. Change is threatening and confusing, altering the time-honored and familiar. Some followers actively take the initiative to resist change, finding ways to prevent things from being done differently. At the positive end of this dimension are the followers who look for new and better ways to do things because they are committed to continuous quality improvement and see change as the vehicle for continuous improvement. These followers see change as an opportunity for improvement for their organizations and themselves. Such followers anticipate or look for change. They can be extremely effective as agents for change, by explaining to their coworkers the advantages of doing things differently; and showing by example how different doesn't have to mean worse. Leaders who are responsible for implementing change should evaluate their followers on this dimension, looking to those who will embrace change as their vanguard.

Relationship Initiative

Relationship initiative refers to the follower's active attempts to improve his or her working relationship with the leader. People who demonstrate a high degree of relationship initiative find ways to help the leader succeed because they know that "you can't succeed if your supervisor fails."

On the relationship initiative dimension there are several questions to be explored: To what extent does the follower understand and identify with the leader's vision for the organization? Does the follower actively try to engender mutual trust with the leader? To what extent is the follower willing to communicate in a courageous

fashion with the leader? How actively does the follower work to negotiate differences with the leader? At the low end of this dimension people take the relationship that they are given. At the high end they work to increase openness and understanding in order to gain a perspective that can inform their choices as a partner. The following subscales describe the relationship initiative:

Identifying with the Leader. Followers vary considerably in the extent to which they understand and empathize with the leader's perspective. Many followers simply do not. Viewing the leader as something strange and not quite human, they do not try to think about how things look from the leader's perspective or what the leader's goals or problems might be. In organizations with clear hierarchical structures and relatively strict chains of command, it is probably quite natural to see this element missing in the typical follower's approach to the leader. Followers may even be encouraged to think of their leaders as sufficiently different (i.e., superior) as to defy understanding by mere mortals. In contrast, some followers have thought more dispassionately about their leaders, understand their aspirations and styles, and have developed sufficient respect for the leader to adopt those aspirations as their own. These followers understand the leader's perspective, do what they can to help the leader succeed, and take pride and satisfaction in the leader's accomplishments. Leaders who try to make their own views, goals, aspirations and concerns understood by their followers make it much easier for their followers to adopt and identify with their perspectives.

Building Trust. Followers can also take the initiative to act in ways that will build their leader's confidence and trust in them. This means that the follower will look for and take advantage of opportunities to demonstrate to the leader that she or he is reliable, discreet, and loyal. Followers who demonstrate these qualities to their leaders will in turn be asked for their opinions and reactions to new ideas. Followers who do not seek out such opportunities for building trust, who do not understand or see as important this aspect of their relationship with their leaders, will be treated accordingly and will not be in a position to help their leaders as much as they might. Leaders can encourage followers on this by making available opportunities to demonstrate trustworthiness and by rewarding such behavior with their attention and their confidence and confidences.Mutual trust is the glue that holds the relationships between leaders and followers together.

Courageous Communication. Part of building trust includes being honest, even when that is not the easiest thing to do. This aspect of relationship initiative is important enough to consider in its own right. Some followers fear (often with good reason) being the bearer of bad news and are likely to refrain from speaking unpleasant truths. This can range from the classic notion of the yes-person to simply refraining from speaking one's mind when that might be uncomfortable for the speaker and listeners. But followers who take the initiative in their relationships with their leaders are willing to speak the truth even when others may not enjoy hearing the truth, in order to serve the goals of the organization. A follower who exhibits courageous communication takes risks in order to be honest. Followers are more likely to take risks when the leader has developed a culture where followers are not only allowed to deliver courageous communication but are expected to and are rewarded for doing so.

Negotiating Differences. Another aspect of relationship initiative concerns the follower's approach to differences that arise between leaders and followers. A follower who is oriented toward improving her or his relationship with the leader is in a position to negotiate or mediate these differences. In the case of a difference of opinion between a leader and follower, the follower may engage in open or hidden opposition to the leader's decisions, hiding his or her differences of opinion and quickly agreeing with the leader regardless of true personal opinion. Alternatively, the follower who is concerned about the leader-follower relationship will air these differences in order to have a real discussion that may persuade either party or lead to a compromise that is satisfactory to everyone. This, although desirable, can present a risk for the follower unless the leader has created an environment that encourages followers to air differences and to take a win-win negotiating approach in their interactions with their leaders.The big payoffs are outcomes that lead to creative and innovative actions that benefit leaders and followers.

Developing Partners

While each of the follower styles can be effective in organizations, leaders can create the conditions that lead followers to partnership. This requires that leaders know what they are looking for in their followers. The model we have described above presents this picture. Creating the right conditions for effective followership next requires a clear understanding of practical steps that invite followers to partnership.

Sharon Moore, owner of Moore Interiors, makes a point of making room for partners in her company. When Moore Interiors reorganized and moved functions between its two buildings, the warehouse became the company's new headquarters. Sharon decided to identify the former warehouse as "Moore Interiors" in bold letters on the warehouse and gave the job of putting the name on the building to a salesman in the company. She also gave the salesman the license to figure out how to do the job, which would take a week.

As the work unfolded Sharon could see that the salesman had chosen a different approach than she originally had in mind. He was putting three-foot-tall letters six feet apart so that "Moore Interiors" would stretch across the entire face of the large building and "Beauty for Rooms" (the company's motto) would make a bold statement on the opposite side of the building. Sharon thought about redirecting the young man's efforts but then thought of the cost to personal initiative of doing so. She decided to let the salesman finish the way he had started. In the weeks after the job was done, the company received numerous compliments on the appearance of the new headquarters building. Sharon decided that the job did look better than what she had had in mind, but more important, one more salesman understood that his ideas were valued. Even more important, Sharon shared her reflections about this event with all of the employees. The wider result was that everyone understood how the owner viewed quality, initiative, and teamwork.

Those leaders who share their own thinking about why they do what they do and push their followers to think with them about why things work the way they do also push their followers to become partners. Those who encourage feedback on operations and welcome questions from their followers have a greater chance of achieving partnership. Ginnett's work shows that the difference between the best pilots in command and the others is that they directly engage each member of the crew and empower them to be active partners in the success of the mission. The best partners learn how to share what they see and think because their leaders teach them when to give their inputand when not to. Leaders who work day-to-day to create partners will find them ready when they need them, and partners who are willing to accept this role will find that they are valued by their leaders.

Epilogue

It is counter intuitive but true, that larger complex organizations often offer employees the greatest freedom to choose follower roles, especially if they are what Karl Weick has called "loosely coupled" organizations. In these situations, individual followers can create partnerships that significantly increase the probability of their success, even when the organization as a whole "hasn't got a clue." The best will recognize this opportunity and grab it. So think about sharing this chapter with colleaguesfollowers and leaders. Remember that followers who are true partners act in the best interests of the organization and their leader. You can't lose!

References

Chaleff, Ira 2009.The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders.3rd Ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Ginnett, R. C. 1990. "Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership." In E. L. Wiener, B. B. Kanki, and R. L. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management. San Diego: Academic Press. Rosenbach, W. E., Pittman, T. S., and Potter, E. H. and Baker, S. D. 1997. "The Performance and Relationship Questionnaire." Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA.

2.Article Conceptualising followership - a review of the literature

Brian Crossman and Joanna Crossman School of Management, University of South Australia, Australia.

Abstract Despite growing attention in professional and academic literature, a commonly accepted definition of followership does not seem to have emerged. The authors nevertheless explore some of the implications of followership definitions to date and build on these to offer one of their own. A review of the literature ensues, highlighting descriptive and prescriptive behavioural typologies, and situational theories. The paper argues that understanding the concept of followership better is likely to improve training and organizational performance and concludes with suggestions for future research and some implications for leadership/followership development.

Keywords followership, leadership, management, organizational behaviour, leadership/followership development

Introduction Leadership is a much debated topic but, according to Burns (1978), is a little understood phenomenon despite a burgeoning choice of academic and public literature available. Few individuals are actually absolute leaders (Hackman and Wageman, 2007) with most spending the majority of their working lives in following rather than leading roles (Ciulla, 2003; Gronn, 1998; Rost, 1993). It is perhaps unsurprising therefore that a dedicated text, The Power of Followership (Kelley, 1992) attracted so much attention and became a seminal text for the corporate world and that a number of recent books and articles on leadership are now devoting attention to the topic (Alio, 2009; Dubrin et al., 2006; Goee and Jones, 2006;

Corresponding author: Dr Joanna Crossman, Room EM4-32, City West Campus, Elton Mayo Building, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, South Australia 5001 Email: J..n@unisa.edu.au

Leadership 7(4) 481-497 ! The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1742715011416891 lea.sagepub.com

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Johnson, 2007; Lussier and Achua, 2004; Raelin, 2003; Rosenbach and Taylor, 2006; Townsend and Gebhart, 1997; Yukl, 2006). If followership has attracted less attention than leadership in the literature, it may be because, according to Agho (2009), both managers and management academics appear to have assumed that individuals instinctively know how to follow and have not fully appreciated the potential for individuals to learn how to follow eectively. In addition, with the current climate of shared, distributed or dispersed leadership where '[i]ndividuals can be followers in one team at the same time as they are leaders in another' (Horsfall, 2001) has almost certainly meant that the concept of followership has become increasingly relevant to both practitioners and academics. The view that followership is a complement to leadership and 'encompasses important character traits for any person who aspires to lead others' (Agho, 2009: 160) also highlights the value of learning more about how to develop followership and has the added benet of enhancing leadership competence and indeed organizational eectiveness from the perspective of a number of authors writing on the subject (Bjugstad et al., 2006; Dixon and Westbrook, 2003; Rosenbach and Taylor, 2006; Russell, 2003; Wortman, 1982). This paper therefore aims to highlight and clarify some key concepts through a review of the literature on followership with the needs of professional developers and organizations in mind.

Defining followers and followership Since the early 1980s the term 'follower' has been increasingly used as a synonym for the term 'subordinate' (Hersey and Blanchard, 1982). Nevertheless, 'subordinate' is still in common usage; for example, the index of a recent book on leadership contains the index entry: 'Followers - See subordinates' (Northouse, 2007: 381). In the search for acceptable alternatives to counteract the negative connotations of the discourse often used to describe followership (Agho, 2009: 159) (including terms such as 'subordinates'), some authors have opted for terms such as 'participants', 'collaborators', and 'partners' (Uhl-Bien, 2006). Another term, 'constituent', has been perceived as inherently neutral (Dubrin et al., 2006) and favoured by authors who analyse leadership within a more political or micro political framework (Birnbaum, 1988; Gardner, 1990; Glasman and Heck, 1996). Yukl (2006: 9) uses 'subordinate' or 'direct report' to denote the existence of a formal authority arrangement, reserving the term 'follower' for those being inuenced by a leader in the absence of formal authority relationship amongst, for example, co-workers or team members. Kellerman (2008: xix) too describes 'followers' in relation to hierarchy, as 'subordinates who have less power, authority, and inuence than do their superiors and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line'. If the concept of leadership has been obfuscated with its numerous denitions, followership in stark contrast appears to have laid claim to far fewer conceptual analyses, developed denitions and in-depth reviews of followership literature. Such a state of aairs may not be unique to the study of followership. Rost's (1993) investigation on leadership showed that approximately two thirds of writers did not dene leadership in their studies. In this review of 30 authors explicitly writing about followership either as a central theme or section to their book, chapter or paper only ve actually gave a concrete denition. Writers use the term 'followership' in a number of ways: as the opposite of leadership in a leadership/followership continuum, a direct or indirect inuential activity, or as a role or a group noun for those inuenced by a leader (Atchison, 2004; Briggs, 2004; Gronn, 1996;

482 Leadership 7(4)

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Hodgkinson,1983; Russell, 2003; Setero, 2003). In other words, denitions of followership are also often constructed in terms of how the concept relates to leadership. A recent comprehensive review of followership literature (Baker, 2007: 56) made use of Heller and van Til's (1982) summation that: 'leadership and followership are best seen as roles in relation', a view which is also endorsed by Kelley (1998). Hollander and Webb (1955), too, provided an early denition of followership but drew attention to the diculty of dening the term given that it might vary depending upon whether followership was approached from the perspective of a leader or a follower. Favouring the former and writing in the context of naval aviation cadets, they dened followership as 'the extent to which an individual is desired by potential leaders of a group functioning within a circumscribed institutional context' (Hollander and Webb, 1955: 155). Another denition from a military context also chose to conceive the concept of followership in relation to the leader's perspective:

Followership can be dened as a process in which subordinates recognize their responsibility to comply with the orders of leaders and take appropriate action consistent with the situation to carry out those orders to the best of their ability. In the absence of orders they estimate the proper action to contribute to mission performance and take that action. (Townsend and Gebhart, 1997: 52).

Likewise, Bjugstad et al. (2006: 304) also take a leader-centred view in stating: 'Followership may be dened as the ability to eectively follow the directives and support the eorts of a leader to maximize a structured organization.' In contrast, an early denition written from a more balanced or neutral perspective of followership is found in the work of Wortman (1982: 373):

followership is the process of attaining one's individual goals by being inuenced by a leader into participating in individual or group eorts toward organizational goals in a given situation. Followership thereby becomes seen as a function of the follower, the leader, and situational variables.

In his pioneering work on followership, Kelley (1988: 146-47) chose to dene leadership and followership in distinctive ways:

The operative denitions are roughly these: people who are eective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to achieve consensus, the verbal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups of individuals, the organizational talent to coordinate disparate eorts and, above all, the desire to lead.

People who are eective in the follower role have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to ourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to others, and, above all, the desire to participate in a team eort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose.

Thus Kelley identied the self and motivation as the primary dierences, with leaders needing perhaps a stronger sense of articulating a vision and 'heroic status' with more humble followers pursuing their goals without harm to others. Howell and Costley (2006: 298) in their denition highlight an interactive rather than hierarchical approach to the relationship of leadership and followership roles, taking the view that they are equally important in achieving group and organizational performance.

Crossman and Crossman 483

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

These authors associated the followership role with 'enthusiasm, cooperation, eort, active participation, task competence and critical thinking' though suggest that followers take on a supportive role in the group in meeting organizational objectives without the need to claim overall responsibility. Many of the denitions cited above assume that roles are inherently related to hierarchical status. This perspective has been challenged by the view that leadership/followership represents an inuential process (see Gardner et al., 2005), irrespective of rank (Rost, 1995, 2008) and a state (Stech, 2008). The notion of followership/leadership as a process is intrinsic to Agho's (2009) argument that only after becoming an eective follower could one become an eective leader - suggesting that followership is an experiential requirement of leadership. Rost's (1995: 112) departure from dening followership in strictly hierarchical terms is evident in the example that follows:

...followers do leadership not followership. And while followers sometimes change places and become leaders, they do have to be leaders to exert inuence, to use power resources to persuade others of their position. In sum, followers are active agents in the leadership relationship, not passive recipients of the leader's inuence.

Drawing on the contributions of these authors, this paper denes followership as complementing leadership and concurs with Carsten et al.'s (2010: 559) concept of followership being 'upward leadership':

Followership is a relational role in which followers have the ability to inuence leaders and contribute to the improvement and attainment of group and organizational objectives. It is primarily a hierarchically upwards inuence.

In sum, followership and leadership are often perceived as being 'highly similar' (Bass and Stogdill, 1990: 346) with some believing the concepts to be 'exchangeable' for the most part (Foster, 1989: 42). Points of greatest dierentiation appear to be concerned with the proportion of time spent in leading, coupled with the power dierentials involved. Nevertheless, it seems clear that continued discussion and debate are required in order to diuse some of the confusion surrounding denitions of leadership and followership.

Review of the literature An overview of overlapping categories of leadership and followership literature Leadership and followership literature can be divided into four broad overlapping categories within a uid continuum: (i) individualized or leader-centric theories; (ii) leader-centred theories which rely on follower perspectives; (iii) multiple leadership which encompasses what is often referred to as shared, distributed or collective leadership, and (iv) the followership literature per se. The rst group, referred to as individualized leadership, is essentially comprised of leader-centred theories concentrating on 'exceptional' (Burns, 1978), 'top level' (Sashkin, 2004) or 'outstanding' (Mumford et al., 2008) leaders in which leadership is primarily top down, employing vision, mission statements or rules to inuence followers. Notwithstanding this leader-centred 'great man' approach, a number of transformational leadership studies have 'increasingly focused on the role of the follower [and] how the characteristics of the follower impact on how transformational a leader behaves' (Avolio and Reichard, 2008: 327).

484 Leadership 7(4)

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

One notable study in the 1980s challenged the leadership literature which had previously largely concentrated on idealized heroic and often charismatic leaders, single-handedly leading their followers to success (Meindl et al., 1985). This inuential paper, The Romance of Leadership, was written to counteract the zeal with which Meindl, Ehrlich and Durkerich believed most leadership theorists had exaggerated leaders' actions and inuences. By analysing discourse surrounding leadership in the popular press, dissertations, business periodicals and conducting further empirical experiments, the study argued that 'leadership has assumed a romanticized, larger than life role' (Meindl et al., 1985: 79). The work of Meindl and co-workers appeared to be a follower-centric model by default as it attempted to counteract some of the myths of hero leaders rather than actually concentrating on followers. Like others, however, Meindl (1995) subsequently pursued an explicitly follower-centered approach in which followers were foregrounded in the investigations (e.g. Den Hartog and Koopman, 2005; Hollander, 1992; Hollander and Oerman, 1990; Keller, 1999; Meindl, 1995; Nye, 2005; Oerman et al., 1994; Uhl-Bien, 2005). Follower-centred perspectives of leadership have adopted a bottom-up approach examining followers' perspectives on what constitutes eective or ineective leaders. For example, leader-member-exchange (LMX) theories have aimed to assess in empirical ways the roles of leaders and followers more dynamically within a leadership process (Shamir, 2007). Although followers are noted, the focus of these studies appears to be aimed at understanding leadership. The third group, relating to multiple leadership acknowledges that leadership can occur not only amongst formally appointed individuals but also amongst informal leaders who emerge from group interactions. Multiple leadership encompasses what has been variously termed shared, dispersed, collective, distributed leadership, team leadership and self-managed teams. The diverse nomenclature surrounding multiple leadership is a problematic issue compounded by the fact that dierent authors use these terms and meanings interchangeably within the same text (Oerman and Scuderi, 2007). Followers are nevertheless fully recognized in a literary and organizational shift away from hierarchical systems to more uid roles in team-based environments. Indeed, a number of authors have questioned the assumed division of labour between leaders and followers and suggest a combination of informal and formal uid interdependence between the two (Gronn, 2003), so that 'strictly speaking, the shared leadership approach is neither leader-centered nor follower-centered because it rejects that there is a distinction between leaders and followers at all (Shamir, 2007: xvii). Despite variations in theoretical frameworks however, a general consensus exists in relation to two ideas. Firstly that 'leadership is not just a top down process between the formal leader and team members' and secondly that 'there can be multiple leaders within a group' (Mehra et al., 2006). The journal paper Substitutes for leadership (Kerr and Jermier, 1978) illustrates this perspective and arose from investigations grounded in contingency leadership used to explain situations where actions by leaders had no discernible positive eect either in terms of improving motivation, or indeed leading to a diminished follower morale. In such instances of ineective leadership within formal hierarchies, the research ndings indicated the development of informal horizontal peer processes to form '[c]ohesive, interdependent work groups...in mature group structures' (Kerr and Jermier, 1978: 379). These processes provided an intrinsic, unspoken leadership in providing norms and expectations for the group in ways that lled a perceived leadership vacuum. Furthermore, in well-motivated teams, the task itself could provide informal but positive feedback in terms of job satisfaction,

Crossman and Crossman 485

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

obviating the need for a formally appointed leader. This theory has much in common with the notion of self-managed teams which has been taken to mean an equal sharing of leadership. Oerman and Scuderi (2007: 77 italics added) 'propose using the term collective leadership in situations where there is an expectation and realization of full participation among the members of the group' but acknowledge that such a state of aairs would likely prove to be a 'rare accomplishment' - the reality being that some team members possess more leadership inuence than others.

Followership Followership, as an active role followers play in shaping the interdependency of leader/ follower interactions, is a perspective rst promulgated in the 1930s (Baker, 2007). Interest in subordinate or follower behaviour gained increased attention in the post-war years (Hollander and Webb, 1955; Zaleznik, 1965) and behavioural theories of the era encouraged employee participation (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Vroom and Yetton, 1973). If leader-centric theories lay rooted in exceptional top-level leaders, followership theories arguably originated at mid-manager levels. The popular management press in the 1990s saw two seminal works on corporate mid-manager training (e.g. those managers who follow more senior levels but are also required to lead others) in the work of Chale (1995) and Kelley (1992). Although Cohen and Bradford (1989) also concentrated on upward and peer interactions in their book Inuence without authority, it was Kelly (1992) and Chale (1995) who made a major contribution using followership in the title of their books, setting the scene for followership being accepted as a eld in its own right. Despite the fact that Kelley and Chale are widely referred to in papers concerned with followership, these texts and a number of others on the topic are criticized because the assumptions are not based on empirical research (Baker, 2007). However, some researchers appear to be answering the call for empirical verication of Kelley's work. Blanchard et al. (2009:114), for example, published their quantitative study of followership with university employees, claiming that until that point, 'no research [had] yet validated Kelley's followership measures'. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) have also attempted to verify Kelley's assumptions in his 1992 text with mixed ndings. Recently, two reviews of the followership literature have emerged. Firstly, as part of their investigation, Bjugstad et al. (2006: 306) categorized the literature into three broad theoretical areas: literature relating to follower motivations, follower values and trust, and the characteristics of eective and ineective followers. Secondly, Baker's (2007) review proved to be a key benchmark in that it was the rst journal article totally dedicated to a review of followership literature. Baker made four key observations: 1) followership and leadership pertain to roles, 2) followers are active rather than passive, 3) followers and leaders share a common purpose, and 4) the relational dynamics between followers and leaders is signicant (Baker, 2007: 56). This paper oers an alternative to Baker's (2007) argument that followership literature can be divided into three groups. The rst group is descriptive, giving actual behaviours exhibited by followers which can be active or passive, disregarding, supporting, or in opposition to their leaders. The second group is prescriptive, concentrating on idealized behaviours that relate to behaviour followers should exhibit rather than those they necessarily do. The third relates to a relatively small body of literature that examines situational factors of followership in terms of how compatible particular leadership and followership styles are

486 Leadership 7(4)

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

when operating in relation to one another in certain contexts. Though these areas of interest have been distinguished, they are also interrelated being underpinned by constructs of self and motivation.

Descriptive behavioural typologies One of the earliest typologies into subordinate behaviour was undertaken by Zaleznik (1965) who explored leader/follower and follower/follower interactions in terms of power and conict within dominating/submissive relationships. He suggested that whilst leaders often ostensibly hold power, with some followers assuming submissiveness (perhaps even with a desire to be controlled), there are nevertheless some followers who are anti-authoritarian and may aspire to dominate the relationship. Under such circumstances, followers can either actively support or indeed undermine the leader. Kelley (1992), in his text entitled The power of followership, becoming arguably one of the most inuential and widely quoted authors of contemporary followership literature, maintained that followers tend to be either active or passive using dependency and critical thinking as causal variables underpinning their respective behaviours. In this model, dependent, uncritical passive followers are cast as being reluctant to voice personal reservations, remaining spectator-like and contributing little. In contrast, conformists are active non-threatening, team players seeking to avoid conict and are later referred to by Kelley as yes people (Kelley, 1998, 2008). Exemplary followers or Star followers (Kelley, 2008), are the ideal. These individuals demonstrate initiative and facilitate the needs and interests of peers, leaders and the organization and exhibit the courage required to put forward perspectives that are sometimes antithetical to their leaders. However, Kelley (1992) warns that critical thinking in its extreme form can give rise to debilitating cynicism characteristic of alienated followers. Alienated followers are described by Kelley as potential 'troublemakers' who do not interact positively with their leaders. Finally, Kelley identied pragmatist followers who balance task and performance within organization rules, cultures and the micro political environment. Pragmatists may question their leaders somewhat but exhibit little initiative (Kelley, 1992). Key typologies of work focusing on followership behaviour are illustrated in the following table. Authors cited have either used behaviours or metaphors to communicate how they have identied each behaviour. Potter and Rosenbach's (2006) work appears to accept Kelley's analysis of the literature in that followership is broadly understood to be inuenced by the relationship between the follower and leader and/or upon the task in hand. These writers refer to relationship initiative as an active participation to improve relationships by identifying with the leader, building trust, courageous communication (being able to deliver bad news, for example) and negotiating dierences. 'Performance initiative' is another concept in the same text, concerned with performing work with others and embracing change. The ideal follower is conceived as a partner who demonstrates a commitment to both task performance and an eective relationship with the leader. According to Potter and Rosebach (2006), politicians tend to concentrate on relationships rather than task output whereas contributors, in contrast, work and perform well but are not so interested in relationships. Stegers et al. (1982) grounded their typology in more self-interested motives such as balancing the desire for recognition and job enhancement with a felt need to protect themselves from failure. As previously indicated, Kelley (1992, 2008) suggested that followership styles depend upon how independent individuals are or their capacity for critical thinking and

Crossman and Crossman 487

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Kellerman (2007, 2008) concentrates on relational motivations such as the level of engagement, dominance and deference. Whilst the typologies summarized in Table 1 do vary, they also exhibit certain commonalties. Less desirable behaviours with low levels of commitment and eectiveness might be grouped at one end of the spectrum. The terms withdrawn (Zaleznik, 1965), alienated, passive (Kelly, 1992), apathetic, deviants, (Steger et al.,1982), subordinates (Potter and Rosenbach, 2006) and isolates (Kellerman, 2008) are illustrative. At the other end of the spectrum, ideal behaviours with a high level of commitment are identiable through such descriptors as exemplary (Kelly, 1992) achiever, superfollower (Steger et al., 1982) and partner (Potter and Rosenbach, 2006; Chale, 2008). Lying in between these extremes are neutral descriptors described by various authors as conformists, pragmatists, bureaucrats, donkeys, game players, contributors and participants. While these typologies stem from the corporate world, one of the few studies of followership in education (Thody, 2003: 147-8) provides another comprehensive typology of actual positive and negative follower behaviours and the roles they adopt.

Prescriptive behavioural typologies The second and smaller area of interest identied in followership studies is more prescriptive, characterized by behaviours that followers should exhibit rather than those they necessarily do. Chale (1995: 6-8), for example, did not categorize followers as passive/active or eective/ineective in his initial work but proposed ve components of courageous followership that focus upon ideal behaviours. These are:

(i) The courage to assume responsibility for themselves and the organization without any expectation that the leader or organization will provide security, opportunities for growth orrequire permission to initiate improvement. (ii) The courage to serve a leader by assuming new or additional responsibilities to unburden their leader and serve the organization. (iii) The courage to challenge by giving voice to the discomfort they feel when the behaviours or policies of the leader or group conict with a personal sense of what is right.

Table 1. A typology of descriptive followership behaviours

Author/s Zaleznik, 1965 Kelly, 1992 Steger et al., 1982

Potter and Rosenbach, 2006 Kellerman, 2008

Follower types Withdrawn Alienated Apathetic Subordinate Isolates Masochistic Passive Bureaucrat Politician Bystanders Compulsive Conformists Game player Contributor Participants Impulsive Pragmatists Donkey Partner Activists Exemplary Kamikaze Diehards Deviant Artist Achiever Superfollower

488 Leadership 7(4)

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(iv) The courage to participate fully in transformation and change processes. (v) The courage to leave. Courageous followers are prepared to actively withdraw support from, even to disavow or oppose destructive leaders, despite high personal risk.

Chale's subsequent work on the model was rened into two key underpinning behaviours for eective followership: 'the courage to support' and the 'courage to challenge the leader's behavior or policies' (Chale, 2008). Chale identied four kinds of follower that illustrate how these behaviours may be manifested:

(1) Resource - low support, low challenge. Will do enough to retain position but no more. (2) Individualist - low support, high challenge. Will speak up when others are silent, but voice is marginalized and perceived as chronically contrarian. (3) Implementer - high support, low challenge. Leader values this style but is at risk because follower will not caution against costly mistakes. (4) Partner - high support, high challenge. Assumes full responsibility for own and leader's behaviour and acts accordingly (adapted from Chale, 2008: 75).

Using Chale's (1995) model, Dixon and Westbrook (2003) conducted an empirical, quantitative study to investigate the relationship between followership and level/status of leader. They concluded that courageous followership existed at all levels of the organization, with senior levels possessing the highest conceptual understanding and acknowledgement of follower behaviours with this capacity diminishing down though the organizational hierarchy. Another of the few empirical studies centred on 'dynamic followership' identied cooperation, exibility, integrity, initiative and problem solving as key skills in a management-instituted initiative to improve customer service (Alcorn, 1992). A recent study has taken Kelly's (1992) exemplary followers as a starting point and developed a followership typology for creative and innovative behaviours in organizations: the creative sceptic, creative catalyst, creative static, and creative supporter (Jaussi et al., 2008).

Table 2. Thody's typology of positive and negative follower behaviours

Negative followers Positive followers

Behaviours Roles played Behaviours Roles played

Alienated Communication distorter Independent Coordinator Isolated Saboteur Active-passive Mentee/apprentice Passive Toxic creator Entrepreneurial Disciple Dependents Loyalist Gatekeeper-filter Observers Exemplary/exceptional Partner/comrade Reluctant-resistant Interdependent Toxic handler Sheep Transactional Second in command Machiavellian Rescuer Plateaued Muse Survivor Yes-people, sycophants

Crossman and Crossman 489

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Attention to ideal follower behaviours has also been inuenced by the current interest in corporate social responsibility and business ethics, just as it has in leadership literature (Johnson, 2007). Of interest is that Agho's (2009: 163) recent study of over 300 senior executives found that although characteristics of leaders and followers are not generally identical, honesty appears to be a common requirement for both. It is 'Crimes of obedience' (Hinrichs, 2007), however, where subordinates comply or collude with the unethical directives and practices of their leaders that contributed to calls for ethical behaviour on the part of followers. In their book on authentic leadership Goee and Jones (2006) devote a chapter to Authentic Followership, characterized as a need to belong, be recognized, be challenged and to experience a sense of excitement. A study by Avolio and Reichard (2008: 327) also alludes to mutual authenticity based on 'transparency, trust, and openness on the part of authentic leaders who are expected to in this regard, set an example and hope that followers will reciprocate. The need for followers to lay claim to a strong sense of self and identity is also an emerging line of enquiry identied in the literature (Gardner et al., 2005). Another signicant study by Collinson (2006) in the oil and gas sector analysed followership using a poststructuralist framework of power, self-identity and subjectivity His framework did not seek to categorize ideal/non-ideal or eective/ineective behaviours but utilized three types of self to explain followership:

(1) The conformist self, stemming from a Foucauldian notion that 'workplace surveillance systems produce disciplined selves'. (2) The resistant self, drawing on Foucault's theory that 'power invariably produces resistance' meaning that some anti leader sentiments and behaviours inevitable. (3) The dramaturgical self, where individuals manipulate their workplace constraints and power markers, such as performance reviews, targets and audits, to their own ends as a coping strategy (adapted from Collinson, 2006: 183-4).

Lord (2008) suggests that self-identity (in other words having a strong sense of self) is associated with an individual's ability to take leadership. Likewise, it has been argued that in contemporary organizations, followers are increasingly demonstrating and being expected to demonstrate, independent or self-leadership roles without regular direction from their leaders (Lord, 2008) especially amongst 'professionals and highly trained service workers' (Howell and Mendez, 2008: 31-4). Self-leadership exhibited by followers may also be characterized by incidences of whistle blowing in response to cases of unethical leadership behaviour (Chale, 1995; Goee and Jones, 2006; Kelly, 1992; Johnson, 2007; Potter and Rosenbach, 2006). Given the potential for attracting marginalization, ostracism (Johnson, 2007) by peers and job loss (Alford, 2008: 238) these kinds of response represent signicant career risks.

Situational theories The third area of interest identiable in followership literature draws attention to the context in which leadership and followership take place. One early study on senior executives (Wortman, 1982) maintained that leadership occurs at higher strategic management levels, whereas followership tends to manifest itself at operational levels. Wortman (1982: 377)

490 Leadership 7(4)

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

argued that followership behaviour is inuenced by whether a follower is employed by a conservative organization or one that is innovative. According to Wortman, conservative organizations reward stability and eciency and punish deviations from group norms, whereas innovative organizations encourage followers to be creative and show initiative. Similarly, Potter and Rosenbach (2006) discuss variations in followership behaviours which depend on whether organizations are experiencing a steady state or slow growth or are faster paced where achievers and risk takers are recognized and rewarded. An early study (Gibbons, 1992) argued for consideration of followership and leadership roles as a situational factor depending upon the relationships involved. Models depicting quadrants of followership styles have been used to illustrate the way that leader and follower relationships as situations might work. For example, the model of Bjugstad et al. (2006) is based on Kelly's (1992) quadrant some years before: the alienated exemplary, the passive and the conformist follower styles and Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) quadrant of situational leadership styles based on task and relationship behaviour between leaders and followers the telling, selling, delegating and participating styles. Bjugstad et al. (2006) superimposed the two quadrants to indicate how certain kinds of leaders and followers might work together. For example, a leader can choose a telling, directive style for conformist followers who have a low desire, commitment or training to task. The delegating style of Hersey and Blanchard (1982) could be used for Kelley's (1992) exemplary followers, the participative style for alienated followers to enhance their motivation and a selling style would work to encourage passive followers intensify their engagement. This proposed model by Bjugstad et al. (2006) has little conrmatory evidence, but nevertheless draws attention to matching and satisfying leader/follower expectations and has the potential for improving performance and productivity. A more recent empirical investigation (Mushonga and Torrance, 2008) employed a ve-factor model of personality: extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience and linked these factors to Kelly's (1988) followership theory with regard to engagement and independent critical thinking. However, the study did not identify a strong correlation between personality and Kelly's (1998) follower attributes. Thompson and Vecchio (2009) also applied Hersey and Blanchard's situational leadership theories (1972, 1982) to a study involving 357 banking employees in Norway and appeared to conrm that employee outcomes are linked to prescribed leader behaviours and follower developmental levels. Furthermore recent research appears to be cementing the importance of followership and providing cogent arguments for practice and directions for future research, topics to which the review now turns.

Recent empirical research and implications for practice and future research Empirical research into followership is still in its infancy but recent studies arguably provide signicant contributions to present theory and provide direction in terms of implications for practice. To illustrate, a quantitative study of followership by Agho (2009) investigated the perspectives of senior directors in terms of what constituted desirable attributes for both followers and leaders. The study determined that honesty and competence were commonly thought to be important attributes for eective leaders and followers; however, dependability, loyalty and cooperation 'ranked higher as desirable characteristics for followers' (Agho, 2009: 165). Carsten et al.'s (2010) recent qualitative study of followers at various hierarchical levels was conducted to ascertain how followers themselves constructed followership.

Crossman and Crossman 491

at University of South Australia on June 22, 2015lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from

The study found that followers grouped themselves into one of three categories: (i) passive followers who are loyal, supportive and obey their leaders' directives; (ii) active followers who provide 'opinions when given the opportunity, but remaining obedient and loyal regardless of whether they were in agreement with the leader'; and (iii) 'proactive followers...willing to constructively challenge their managers if needed' (Carsten et a