#Followership
Defining Followership
Followership is an emerging concept. “Followers are subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superiors, and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall in to line” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 213). The majority of people, particularly in organizations, are more often followers than leaders (Kelley, 1988) but until recently the role of the follower has not been considered an inherently valuable position, or a role with a specialized set of skills, motivations, and the power to enhance organizational potential. The world and the organizations in it have been viewed through the leader-centric lens (Kelley, 2008) and little attention has been paid to those who do not lead. Followership recognizes that followers can be in a position to better recognize the day to day events within an organization (Kelley, 2008), that organizations can actively cultivate good followers, and that sometimes following is more difficult than leading (Bennis, 2010).Insisting that followers are integral to the leadership process (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001), an increasing number of writers argue that bexemplaryQ, bcourageousQ, and bstarQ followers are a precondition for bsuccessfulQ organizations (e.g., Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992, 2004; Lundin & Lancaster, 1990; Potter, Rosenbach, & Pittman, 2001; Raelin, 2003; Rosenau, 2004; Seteroff, 2003). While the role of followers in the leadership equation has long been recognized (Hollander, 1992; Parker Follett, 1949) and recent work has extended follower-centered approaches to leadership (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Meindl, 1995; Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2007), an area that has not yet been explored in leadership research is that of followership (Baker, 2007). Followership research, consistent with Graen and Uhl-Bien's (1995) description of “follower-based” approaches (p. 223), adopts the follower as the primary focus and explores how followership behaviors are related to organizational outcomes of interest (e.g., leadership, performance). A followership approach differs from “follower-centric approaches to leadership” (Meindl, 1995) in that the issue of interest is not follower perspectives of leadership but instead follower perspectives of followership. Rather than considering how followers view their leaders and their leaders' behaviors, a focus on followership would consider how followers view their own behaviors and roles when engaging with leaders (Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007). A focus on followership helps increase our understanding of the leadership process by adding to current typologies of leader styles and behaviors (Pearce & Conger, 2003), a description of follower styles and followership behaviors. Such a perspective helps “reverse the lens” (Shamir, 2007) in leadership research by addressing the role that followers play in creating and maintaining effective followership and leadership outcomes. Moreover, it addresses calls by Collinson (2006) and others (Lord & Brown, 2004) for a need to generate a deeper understanding of follower identities and the complex ways these identities affect leaders and the leadership process.
Follower-centered perspectives
In the 1990s a stream of research in leadership began to emerge that constitutes a follower-centered approach to leadership (Shamir et al., 2007). This work, initiated by Jim Meindl (1995) and extended by others (Howell & Shamir, 2005; Lord & Brown, 2004; Pillai, Kohles, & Bligh, 2007), offers a framework. Meindl's propositions have been explored by a number of researchers interested in understanding how follower traits, emotions, and attitudes influence their perceptions of, or preferences for, certain types of leaders (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003; also see Bligh & Schyns, 2007 for a review).
We know that followers and followership are essential to leadership. However, despite the abundance of investigations into leadership in organizational studies (Yukl, 2012), until recently little attention has been paid to followership in leadership research (Baker, 2007; Bligh, 2011; Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Kelley, 2008; Sy, 2010). When followers have been considered, they have been considered as recipients or moderators of the leader's influence (i.e., leader-centric views, Bass, 2008) or as “constructors” of leaders and leadership (i.e., follower-centric views, Meindl, 1990; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). The study of followers as key components of the leadership process and same has been missed in leadership literature.
The study of followership involves an investigation of the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process. The leadership process is a term used to signify a connectionist view (Lord & Brown, 2001) that sees leadership as a dynamic system involving leaders (or leading) and followers (or following) interacting together in context (Hollander, 1992a; Lord et al., 1999; Padilla et al., 2007; Shamir, 2012; Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012). This definition identifies followership through two aspect: followership as a rank or position (i.e., role), and followership as a social process.
The first, a role theory approach (Katz & Kahn, 1978), sees followership as a role played by individuals occupying a formal or informal position or rank (e.g., a “subordinate” in a hierarchical “manager–subordinate” relationship; a follower in a “leader– follower” relationship). The second, a constructionist approach (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010), views followership as a relational interaction through which leadership is co-created in combined acts of leading and following (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2012). Role-based approaches are consistent with Shamir's description of “reversing the lens” in leadership research (Shamir, 2007). In contrast to leader-centric approaches examining how leaders influence follower attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes, role-based followership approaches consider how followers influence leader attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes. These approaches identify followers as the causal agents—i.e., follower characteristics and behaviors are the independent variables, and leader characteristics and behaviors are the dependent or moderator variables (Shamir, 2007). The focus in these approaches is on follower characteristics and style, followership role orientations, implicit theories of followership, follower identities, and how follower identities and behaviors shape leader attitudes, behaviors and effectiveness (Collinson, 2006; Lord & Brown, 2004).
Constructionist approaches see followership and leadership as co-constructed in social and relational interactions between people (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2007). A constructionist approach considers that leadership can only occur when leadership influence attempts or identity claims are met with followership granting behaviors (e.g., deference) or identity claims (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; see also Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012; Shamir, 2012). Followership is seen in “following behaviors” that can include leader and follower claiming and granting (DeRue & Ashford, 2010), deferring or obeying (Blass, 2009; Burger, 2009; Milgram, 1965, 1974), resisting or negotiating with another's wishes or influence attempts (Tepper, Duffy, & Shaw, 2001; Tepper et al., 2006), or trying to influence another to go along with one's influence attempts (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). In this way followership is not tied to a role but to a behavior. This approach allows us to recognize that managers are not always leading—they also defer to subordinates, which means they also engage in “following behaviors” (Fairhurst & Hamlett, 2003; Larsson & Lundholm, 2013).
The earliest role-based views are provided in typologies that identify follower characteristics and styles. The first such typology was provided by Zaleznik (1965). Focusing on the dynamics of subordinacy, Zaleznik distinguished followers according to two axes: dominance–submission and activity–passivity. Dominance–submission ranges from subordinates who want to control their superiors to those who want to be controlled by superiors. Activity–passivity ranges from subordinates who “initiate and intrude” to those who do nothing.
The resulting typology identifies four categories of followers: (1) impulsive subordinates, (2) compulsive subordinates, (3) masochistic subordinates, and (4) withdrawn subordinates. This typology of subordinates/ followers is introduced both as a means of helping leaders better understand how to deal with followers, but also as providing direction to followers who aspire to positions of leadership. As Zaleznik and Kets de Vries (1975) state, “...the person who aspires to leadership must negotiate the risky passage between dependency and assertiveness” (p. 167).
Followership Models
Robert Kelley
Although Zaleznik provided the first typology, clearly the most cited early work on followership is that of Robert Kelley (1988). Kelley defined the ideal follower as participating in a joint process of achieving some common purpose (Kelley, 1988, 1992, 2008). He ascribed to “effective followers” an array of positive qualities, such as being self-motivated, independent problem-solvers, and committed to the group and organization. Effective followers “are courageous, honest, and credible” (Kelley, 1988, p. 144). Kelley's typology uses dependent–independent and passive–active as the quadrants (i.e., alienated followers, exemplary followers, conformist followers, passive followers, and a “center” group, midway on the two dimensions who are labeled pragmatist followers). These quadrants range from the stereotypical “sheep,” which are passive and dependent, to “yes people” who are active, but dependent—the classic stereotype of followers who blindly follow whatever the leader dictates (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006; Hoption et al., 2012; Townsend & Gebhardt, 1997). Kelley advocated turning all followers into “exemplary followers,” arguing that the best followers are anything but passive sheep—they are actively engaged and exhibit courageous conscience (Kelley, 1992).
Kelley (1988) distinguishes followers in terms of their behavior and personality attributes and defines the different styles of followership by considering two different behavioral dimensions: one dimension measures the degree to which followers think independently and critically and the other assesses the level of engagement whether active or passive in the organization. Based on these two dimensions, Kelley defines five basic styles of follower; the s heep, the yes people, the alienated, the pragmatics, and the star followers. Each exhibits a different degree of independent thinking and organizational engagement and differs in their motivations. The following is a basic assessment of each follower type according to Kelley (1988) Table 1 describes same:
1. The sheep are passive in their thinking and engagement and are motivated by their leader rather than themselves.
2. The yes-people also allow their leader to do most of the thinking and acting for them but are generally positive and always on the leader’s side.
3. In contrast, the alienated are predominantly negative but think more independently. They think for themselves but do not contribute to the positive direction of the organization.
4. The pragmatics exhibit a minimal level of independent thinking and engagement as they are more willing to exert energy and get involved when they see where the direction of the situation is headed. The pragmatics, thus, lack in demonstrating critical thinking and are motivated by maintaining the status quo.
5. Finally, the star followers think for themselves, have positive energy, and are actively engaged. They agree with and challenge their leaders.
5. Finally, the star followers think for themselves, have positive energy, and are actively engaged. They agree with and challenge their leaders.
Kelley’s (1988) model focuses on the role of followers in an organization and creates a framework for identifying the different types. Through his assessment, organizations are able to recognize where the different perceptions and negative connotations of followers have developed and to consider the importance of the positive followership styles that exist (Kelley, 2008). He conceptualizes that effective followership exhibits a variety of qualities including the ability of followers to manage themselves, build on their own competence, exhibit commitment to the organizational purpose, and are courageous, honest, and credible (Kelley, 1988, p. 3). Kelley (1988) argues that the same qualities that make effective leaders are those that make effective followers and emphasizes the importance and purpose of followers. He states that “we need to view followers as the primary defenders against toxic leaders of dysfunctional organizations” (Kelley, 2008, p. 14). In general, Kelley places significant emphasis on the necessity and how-to ability of organizations to cultivate effective followers, how to teach people to stand up and prepare them to be successful. Kelley described five styles of followership categorized according to two dimensions:
The first dimension: independent, critical thinking, versus dependent, uncritical thinking.
Independent thinking recalls the discussion of mindfulness; independent thinkers are mindful of the effects of people’s behavior on achieving organizational goals. A dependent, uncritical thinker does not consider possibilities, does not contribute to the cultivation of the organization, and accepts the leader's ideas without thinking.
The second dimension: active versus passive behavior.
An active individual participates fully in the organization, and a passive individual is characterized by a need for constant supervision and prodding. The extent to which one is active or passive and is critical, independent thinker versus a dependent, uncritical thinker determines a type of followership style:
An alienated follower is a person in the organization who is passive yet independent, critical thinker. Alienated followers are often effective followers who have experienced setbacks and obstacles, perhaps broken promises by superiors. They focus exclusively on the shortcomings of the organization and other people.
A conformist is a follower who is an active participant but does not utilize critical thinking skills in task behavior. A conformist carries out any and all orders regardless of the nature of the tasks, participating willingly but without considering the consequences. The only concern is to avoid conflict.
TABLE 1 (mail anubhawalia@gmail.com for Table and more details)
A pragmatic survivor is one who has qualities of all four extremes --- depending on which style fits with the prevalent situation. This type of follower uses whatever style best benefits a personal position and minimizes risk. Pragmatic survivors emerge when the organization faces desperate times, and followers do whatever is needed to get themselves through the difficulty.
A passive follower is one who exhibits neither critical, independent thinking nor active participation. Being passive and uncritical, this type of follower displays neither initiative nor a sense of responsibility. Passive followers leave the thinking to their leaders. Passive followers are often the result of leaders who are over controlling and punish mistakes.
An effective follower is one who is both a critical, independent thinker and active in the organization.Effective followers behave the same toward everyone, regardless of their position.They do not try to avoid risk or conflict. They initiate change and put themselves at risk to serve the best interest of the organization; they are characterized by both mindfulness and a willingness to act.
Ira Chaleff
Following Kelley, in 1995 Ira Chaleff published a practitioner book called The Courageous Follower. His premise was that the key to effective leadership is effective followership, which occurs when followers “vigorously support” leaders in pursuing the mission and vision of the organization. Effective followership requires followers who are accountable and willing to “stand up to and for leaders”. He calls this courageous because followers at times will have to challenge and confront leaders with unpleasant information and critical and honest feedback. Effective followers are partners with leaders who contribute to satisfying and productive work environments by being accountable and taking a proactive approach to their role. Using axes ranging from low-high support and low-high challenge of the leader, Chaleff identifies four different follower styles: implementer, partner, individualist, and resource (1995, 2003, 2008). His foundational premise is that “leaders rarely use their power wisely or effectively over long periods unless they are supported by followers who have the stature to help them do so” (Chaleff, 2003, p. 1). (2008) model also focuses on followership in the workplace. Like Kelley, Chaleff conceptualizes how organizations can equip the everyday workers with the skills and mindsets required to be effective followers, and develops an even stronger framework for followership development. Chaleff also names the power that followers exhibit in their different qualities and distinguishes that power as courage. Chaleff divides these styles in to groups:
Chaleff, differentiates four of followership based on the degree to which followers have the courage to support or the
1. The resource style of followership exhibits low support and low challenge.
2. The individualist style represents low support and high challenge. This follower will
speak up but typically takes a position opposed to the majority.
speak up but typically takes a position opposed to the majority.
3. The implementer style demonstrates high support and low challenge.
4. The partner style is characterized by high support and high challenge, assuming full
responsibility for their actions and acting accordingly.
responsibility for their actions and acting accordingly.
Challef (2008) and Kelley’s (1988) models are very similar; each identifies the styles of followership by considering the levels of independent thinking and organizational engagement. Chaleff’s emphasis on courage is similar to Kelley’s perception that followers are essential in limiting toxic leaders, but Chaleff develops a stronger context for evolving and encouraging followers to be more effective. He stresses the follower potential and purpose to “influence upward” (Chaleff, 2008, p. 82) in order to transform the organizational culture. He states that “once people have a sense of the range of follower styles and of their own tendency, they need to connect these to situations they encounter in organizational settings” (Chaleff, 2008, p. 77), and offers examples of how organizations have used this exercise with success. Furthermore, Chaleff more specifically establishes that “both leaders and followers serve a common purpose, each from their own role” (p. 71). In general, Chaleff’s model provides a more in depth “how-to” for organizations to evolve their followers and transform their culture.
Barbara Kellerman
Coming from a political science perspective, Kellerman's (2008) focus on followership divides followers into five categories based on the level of engagement of the follower. Her typology, ranging from “feeling and doing nothing” to “being passionately committed and deeply involved,” results in five types of followers: isolate, bystander, participant, activist, and diehard. Kellerman's goal in this simple typology is to suggest that the critical element in followership is engagement. For example, isolates are completely detached, bystanders observe but do not participate, participants are in some way engaged, activists feel strongly about their leaders and act accordingly, and diehards are deeply committed and prepared to die for their causes. She uses this framework to argue that followers have more power and influence than they are traditionally accredited. Her interest is in focusing on how engaged followers can act as agents of change.
Kellerman (2008) provides a more worldview of followership and takes the concept outside just the organizational perspective. Like Kelley, Kellerman positions follower styles in a more hierarchical method, placing followers on a continuum of low engagement to absolutely committed. Kellerman’s model, however, provides a more holistic view of followers through conceptualizing followers in relation to leaders and in relation to other followers. She identifies five different followership styles:
Hope you have liked my Research work. For full paper please contact anubhawalia@gmail.com.
Research Paper has been published in - Training & Development Journal Year : 2014, Volume : 5, Issue : 2
First page : ( 165) Last page : ( 174) Print ISSN : 2231-0681. Online ISSN : 2231-069X.
Article DOI : 10.5958/2231-069X.2014.00791.4 Topic Exploration of Followership
Article DOI : 10.5958/2231-069X.2014.00791.4 Topic Exploration of Followership
No comments:
Post a Comment