The art of followership pdf

Case Study Analysis

12

FOLLOWERSHIP

DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

the central role followers play in the leadership process. The process of leading requires the process of

following. Leaders and followers together create the leadership relationship and without an understanding of

the process of following, our understanding of leadership is incomplete (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Riggio,

Lowe, and Carsten, 2014).

For many people, being a follower and the process of followership has negative connotations. One reason is

that people do not find followership as compelling as leadership. Leaders, rather than followers, have always

taken center stage. For example, in school, children are taught early that it is better to be leader than a follower.

In athletics and sports, the praise for performance consistently goes to the leaders, not the team players. When

people apply for jobs, they are asked to describe their leadership abilities, not their followership activities.

Clearly, it is leadership skills that are applauded by society, not followership skills. It is just simply more

intriguing to talk about how leaders use power than to talk about how followers respond to power.

While the interest in examining the active role of followers was first approached in the 1930s by Follett (1949),

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

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

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

focused on leaders’ traits, roles, and behaviors because leaders are viewed as the causal agents for

organizational change. At the same time, the impact of followers on organizational outcomes has not been

generally addressed. Researchers often conceptualize leadership as a leader-centric process, emphasizing the

role of the leader rather than the role of the follower. Furthermore, little research has conceptualized

leadership as a shared process involving the interdependence between leaders and followers in a shared

relationship. Even though followers share in the overall leadership process, the nature of their role has not

been scrutinized. In effect, followership has rarely been studied as a central variable in the leadership process.

There are indications that this is beginning to change. In a recent New York Times article, Susan Cain (author

of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking) decries the glorification of leadership

skills in college admissions and curricula and argues that the world needs more followers. It needs team

players, people called to service, and individuals committed to something outside of themselves. Followership

is also receiving more attention now because of three major works devoted exclusively to the process of

following: The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great leaders and Organizations by Riggio,

Chaleff, and Lipman-Blumen (2008), Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing

Leaders by Kellerman (2008), and Followership: What is It and Why do People Follow? by Lapierre and

http://www.quietrev.com/a-message-to-our-community-from-susan-cain/
Carsten (2014). Collectively, these books have put the spotlight on followership and helped to establish it as

a legitimate and significant area of study.

In this chapter, we will examine followership and how it is related to the leadership process. First, we will

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

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

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

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

of ineffective followership that contribute to destructive leadership.

Followership Defined

It is challenging to define followership because the term conjures up different meanings for people, and the

idea of being a follower is positive for some and negative for others. For example, followership is seen as

valuable in military situations when soldiers follow orders from a platoon leader to complete a mission, or

when passengers boarding a plane follow the boarding agent’s instructions. In contrast, however, followers

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

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

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

different settings.

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

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

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

power.

Followership also has an ethical dimension. Like leadership, followership is not amoral; that is, it is not a

process that is morally neutral. Followership carries with it a responsibility to consider the morality of one’s

actions and the rightness or wrongness of the outcomes of what one does as a follower. Followers and leaders

work together to achieve common goals and both share a moral obligation regarding those goals. There are

ethical consequences to followership and to what followers do because the character and behavior of followers

has an impact on organizational outcomes.

Role-Based And Relational-Based Perspectives

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

Lowe, and Carsten, 2014).

The role-based perspective focuses on followers in regard to the typical roles or behaviors they exhibit while

occupying a formal or informal position within a hierarchical system. For example, in a staff planning

meeting, some people are very helpful to the group because they bring energy and offer insightful suggestions

regarding how the group might proceed. Their role as engaged followers, in this case, has a positive impact

on the meeting and its outcomes. Emphasis in the role-based approach is on the roles and styles of followers

and how their behaviors affect the leader and organizational outcomes.

The relational-based approach to followership is quite different from the role-based approach. The relational-

based system is based on social constructivism. Social constructivism is a sociological theory that argues that

people create meaning about their reality as they interact with each other. For example, a fitness instructor

and an individual in an exercise class negotiate with each other about the kind of influence the instructor will

have and the amount of influence the individual will accept. From a social constructivist perspective,

followership is co-created by the leader and follower in a given situation. The meaning of followership

emerges from the communication between leaders and followers and stresses the interplay between following

and leading. Rather than focusing on roles, it focuses on the interpersonal process and one person’s attempt

to influence and the other person’s response to these influence attempts. Leadership occurs within the

interpersonal context of people exerting influence and responding to those influence attempts. In the

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

& Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten, 2014).

Typologies of Followership

How can we describe followers’ roles? Trying to do just that has been the primary focus of much of the

existing followership research. As there are many types of leaders, so too, are there many types of followers

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

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

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

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

Table 12.1 Typologies of Followership

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

Withdrawn Alienated Resource Isolate

Masochistic Passive Individualist Bystander

Compulsive Conformist Implementer Participant

Impulsive Pragmatist Partner Activist

Exemplary Diehard

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

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

The Zaleznik Typology

The first typology of followers was provided by Zaleznik (1965) and was intended to help leaders understand

followers and also to help followers understand and become leaders. In an article published in the Harvard

Business Review, Zaleznik created a matrix which displayed followers’ behaviors along two axes:

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

followers from those who want to control their leaders (i.e., be dominant) to those who want to be controlled

by their leaders (i.e., be submissive). The horizontal axis represents a range of followers from those who want

to initiate and be involved to those who sit back and withdraw. Based on the two axes, the model identifies

four types of followers: withdrawn (submissive/passive), masochistic (submissive/active), compulsive (high

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

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

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

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

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

responses to inner tensions regarding authority. These tensions may be unconscious but can often come to

the surface and influence the communication in leader-follower relationships.

The Kelley Typology

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

believes followers are enormously valuable to organizations and that the power of followers often goes

unrecognized. He stresses the importance of studying followers in the leadership process and gave impetus

to the development of the field of followership. While Zaleznik focused on the personal aspects of followers,

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

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

followership.

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

Kelley sorted followers’ styles on two axes: independent critical thinking–dependent uncritical thinking and

active–passive. These dimensions resulted in five follower role types:

• passive followers (sometimes pejoratively called “sheep”) who look to the leader for direction and motivation,

• conformist followers who are “yes-people” always on the leader’s side but still look to the leader for direction and guidance,

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

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

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

Based on his observations, Kelley (1988) asserts that effective followers share the same indispensible

qualities: 1) they self- manage and think for themselves, exercise control and independence, and work without

supervision; 2) they show strong commitment to organizational goals (i.e. something outside themselves) as

well as their own personal goals; 3) they build their competence and master job skills, and 4) they are credible,

ethical, and courageous. Rather than framing followership in a negative light, Kelley underscores the positive

dimensions of following.

The Chaleff Typology

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

leadership process (see Table 12.1). He developed his typology as a result of a defining moment in his

formative years when he became aware of the horrors of the World War II holocaust that killed more than 6

million European Jews. Chaleff felt a moral imperative to seek answers as to why people followed German

leader Adolf Hitler, a purveyor of hate and death. What could be done to prevent this from happening again?

How could followers be emboldened to help leaders use their power appropriately and act to keep leaders

from abusing their power?

Figure 12.3 Leader-Follower Interaction

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

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

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

12.3) and that both leaders and followers work to achieve common outcomes. Chaleff states that followers

need to take a more proactive role that brings it into parity with the leader’s role. He sought to make followers

more responsible, to change their own internal estimates of their abilities to influence others, and to help

followers feel a greater sense of agency.

To achieve equal influence with leaders, Chaleff emphasizes that followers need to be courageous. His

approach is a prescriptive one; that is, it advocates how followers ought to behave. According to Kelley,

followers need the courage to:

a) assume responsibility for the common purpose, b) support the leader and the organization, c) constructively challenge the leader if the common purpose or integrity of group is being threatened, d) champion the need for change when necessary, and e) take a moral stand that is different from the leader’s to prevent ethical abuses.

In short, Chaleff proposes that followers should be morally strong and work to do the right thing when facing

the multiplicity of challenges that leaders place upon them.

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

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

75).

Chaleff created a follower typology (Figure 12.4) which is constructed using two characteristics of courageous

followership: the courage to support the leader (vertical axis) and the courage to challenge the leader’s

behavior and policies (horizontal axis). This typology differentiates four styles of followership:

1) Resource (lower left quadrant) which exhibits low support and low challenge. This is the person

who does just enough to get by.

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

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

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

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

leader’s goals and values.

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

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

when necessary.

The Kellerman Typology

Kellerman’s (2008) typology of followers was developed from her experience as a political scientist and her

observations about followers in different historical contexts. Kellerman argues that the importance of leaders

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

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

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

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

She suggests a continuum (Figure 12.5), which describes followers on one end as being detached and doing

nothing for the leader or the group’s goals and followers on the opposite end as being very dedicated and

deeply involved with the leader and the group’s goals. As shown in the figure, Kellerman’s typology identifies

five levels of follower engagement and behaviors:

Isolates are completely unengaged. They are detached and do not care about their leaders. Isolates who do

nothing actually strengthen the influence potential of a leader. For example, when an individual feels alienated

from the political system and never votes, elected officials end up having more power and freedom to exert

their will.

Bystanders are observers who do not participate. They are aware of the leader’s intentions and actions but

deliberately choose to not become involved. In a group situation, the bystander is the person who listens to

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

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

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

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

Activists feel strongly about the leader and the leader’s policies and are determined to act on their own beliefs.

They are change agents. For example, in 2017, activists were willing to sit in the halls of the U.S. Capitol to

protest proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.

Diehards are engaged to the extreme. They are deeply committed to supporting the leader or opposing the

leader. Diehards are totally dedicated to their cause, even willing to risk their lives for it. In a small group

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

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

example, there have been U.S. congresspersons willing to force the government into economic calamity by

refusing to vote to raise the country’s debt ceiling in order to force their will on a particular issue, such as

increased defense spending or funding for a roads project in their district.

What do these four typologies (i.e., Zaleznik, Kelley, Chaleff, and Kellerman) tell us about followers? What

insights or conclusions are suggested by the typologies?

First, these typologies provide a starting point for research. The first step in building theory is to define the

phenomenon under observation and these typologies are that first step to identifying key followership

variables. Second, these typologies highlight the multitude of different ways followers have been

characterized, from alienated or masochistic to activist or individualist. Third, while the typologies do not

differentiate a definitive list of follower types, there are some commonalities among them. Generally, the

major followership types are: active–engaged, independent–assertive, submissive–compliant, and

supportive–conformer. Or, as suggested by Carsten, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014), passive followers, anti-

authoritarian followers, and proactive followers.

Fourth, the typologies are important because they label individuals engaged in the leadership process. This

labeling brings followers to the forefront and gives them more credence for their role in the leadership process.

These descriptions can also assist leaders in effectively communicating with followers. By knowing that a

follower adheres to a certain type of behavior, the leader can adapt her or his style to optimally relate to the

role the follower is playing.

Collectively, the typologies of followership provide a beginning point for theory building about followership.

Building on these typologies, the next section discusses some of the first attempts to create a theory of

followership.

Theoretical Approaches To Followership

What is the phenomenon of followership? Is there a theory that explains it? Uhl-Bien and her colleagues

(2014) set out to answer those questions by systematically analyzing the existing followership literature and

introducing a broad theory of followership. They state that followership is comprised of “characteristics,

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

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

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

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

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

followership as shown in Table 12.2.

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

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

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

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

motivations, and the way an individual perceives what it means to be a follower. Leader characteristics refer

to the attributes of the leader, such as the leader’s power and/or willingness to empower others, the leader’s

perceptions of followers, and the leader’s affect (i.e., the leader’s positive or negative feelings toward

followers). Followership behaviors are the behaviors of individuals who are in the follower role, that is, the

extent to which they obey, defer, or resist the leader. Leadership behaviors are the behaviors of the individuals

in the leadership role, such as how the leader influences followers to respond. Finally, followership outcomes

are the results that occur based on the followership process. The outcomes can influence the individual

follower, the leader, the relationship between the leader and the follower, and the leadership process. For

example, how a leader reacts to a follower, whether the follower receives positive or negative reinforcement

from a leader, and whether a follower advances the organizational goals, all contribute to followership

outcomes.

To explain the possible relationships between the variables and constructs identified in Table 12.2, the authors

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