THE EVALUATION OF A PARADIGM: THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION        OF THE INFLUENCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES          AND COURAGE...
UMI Number: 3403225                                  All rights reserved                           INFORMATION TO ALL USER...
© Terry Fobbs, 2010
AbstractThis study examined the statistical relationship between followership style (Kelley, R.E.,The power of followershi...
displayed, and that all followership styles did display these behaviors to some extent. Thestudy also found that demograph...
Dedication       I want to dedicate this paper to my Heavenly Father and His Son, my Lord andSavior Jesus Christ. It was t...
Acknowledgments       I wish to acknowledge the following individuals: my mentor Dr. Keith Grant asthe Chair of my committ...
Sinclair who have given me their love, support and prayers every step of the way, Dr.Diane Bandow who is an icon to me for...
Table of Contents     Acknowledgments                                                       iv     List of Tables         ...
Leadership Concepts and Followership                                          72     Analysis of Transformational and Serv...
CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS    135     Research Overview                                  135    ...
List of TablesTable 1. Relationship of Followership Style to Followership Questionnaire Scores    66Table 2. Dixon’s (2003...
List of FiguresFigure 1. Seven Paths to Followership                         30Figure 2. Dimensional Relationships of Foll...
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION                               Introduction to the Problem       Organizations are seeking various ...
However, the examination of employee job satisfaction through the lens offollowership versus leadership is both a research...
power relationships seeking balance is based upon the values placed upon mutualdependence and the values the actors placed...
things being equal, (i.e. facilities, location, amenities), is good customer service (Greger& Peterson, 2000).       The p...
new and established programs to improve employee job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment (Chaleff, 2008; Jaussi, Ste...
followership style and passive followership style (Kelley, 1992) as measured by TheFollowership Questionnaire (TFQ) will b...
attributes using similar research methods of the transformational leadership and jobsatisfaction studies (Baker; 2006; Bel...
and fixed view of how: (a) followership style as independent variables affect followershipbehaviors the dependent variable...
and framework to examine the influence of followership styles and courageous followerattributes on hotel customer-contact ...
Phase 2 Research HypothesesHypotheses tested using correlation and multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)       MANCOV...
Alternate Hypothesis 5: There is a correlation between conformist followership style andhotel customer-contact employee jo...
perceptions and style and organizational performance (Bell, 2007; Deckert, 2007; andPitron, 2008) while some studies have ...
themselves as mavericks, but are not team players and do not move in a positivedirection. They like to maintain the status...
• Exemplary or star follower. These followers can think for themselves, aresmart, and have a great deal of positive energy...
• Job satisfaction. How employees feel about their jobs and the various aspects oftheir jobs (Spector, 1997).        • Pas...
normal distribution of the sample population of hotel customer-contact employees cannotbe assumed.                        ...
will be gathered at one session at each location versus data being gathered over time in alongitudinal study, the stabilit...
courage to assume responsibility, (b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (4)courage to participate in transformat...
Chapter 3 will detail the methodology used in the study including the researchdesign, sample, the setting of the study, in...
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW                                        Introduction       On playgrounds and soccer fields an...
landing of US Airways Flight 1549, Captain Chesley W. Sullenberger used his skill andtraining to bring the Airbus down saf...
Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006) .The situational leadershiptheory asserts that the relationship betw...
servant-leadership concept moves closer to follower focus that other leadership theoriesbecause of the emphasis on power-s...
means of organizational relationship avenues to enhance organizational performancewhere the focus is more on the follower ...
Leadership, Followership and Employee Job Satisfaction        Several studies have demonstrated that the transformational ...
of the influence of followers on organizations through the lens of followership as theprimary versus secondary focus (Chal...
and receiving feedback, where the leader is more like a teacher and the follower is thelearner. However, depending on the ...
follower relationship as almost symbiotic. Kellerman (2008) argued that there is a globalawakening for followers who reali...
and metacognitive processes followers use in terms of style and behavioral attributes tointeract with and/or influence the...
followership. The dreamer and apprentice paths are used by those whose paths tofollowership are shaped by personal goals. ...
Kelley asserted some people are motivated to contribute their skills and abilitiestoward achieving organizational goals, a...
relationships and interactions between the followers themselves. In contrast, Kelleyasserted that the mentee has a develop...
The final lens is that of self-transformation and the path of discipleship, whereunlike the mentor to mentee relationship,...
follower. The position is based on the official and legal authority the leader has to meteout rewards and punishments to t...
With these levels of follower organizational interaction as a backdrop, Kellerman(2008) posited why people follow. Kellerm...
nonconformity to this rigid societal framework can bring punishment or being ostracized.Here, the follower-leader relation...
style that they do, because, they perceive that the behaviors associated with that style areproper, effective and in keepi...
influence and control of the organization and the followers pursue goals that may not bein the interest of the organizatio...
characteristics within their own leaders (Cronbach, 1955; Watson, Hubbard & Wise, ascited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006).       ...
oriented leaders. There were no hypotheses tested with charismatic and relationship-oriented leadership styles. Followers ...
perceptions of others. These emergent internal structures given rise to multiple internaland external emergent strictures ...
second attribute is own the territory, meaning gaining and building an understanding ofthe organization and the contributi...
processes and will work very hard to support and sustain their leaders or to take action tooust them (Kellerman, 2008).Die...
the same level of commitment as an activist or diehard, especially when it comes toundermining or ousting a leader.Bystand...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Att...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Attributes on Hotel Customer-Contact Employee Job Satisfaction

8,131 views
8,019 views

Published on

This study examined the statistical relationship between followership style, and courageous follower attributes, and the influence of followership style on the job satisfaction, on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. The research premises were that certain followership styles would exhibit more courageous follower attributes than others, and there was a statistical relationship between followership style and hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. An on-site group administration of the three survey instruments collected data to determine the level of courageous follower attributes demographics, reported followership style and level of job satisfaction of the entire population of customer-contact employees of a small Canadian high-end luxury hotel and resort chain. Research revealed high dissatisfaction with nature of work and organizational communication and that nearly two thirds of the respondents self-reported as exemplary followers and there was a statistical relationship between followership style and courageous follower attributes, indicating that the two constructs of followership style, independent critical thinking and active engagement had a direct bearing on the level of courageous follower behaviors displayed, and that all followership styles did display these behaviors to some extent. Research also revealed that demographics had no main effect overall on job satisfaction, except for some facets and that followership style had no effect on job satisfaction except for the facet of nature of work. The principal conclusions were that followership style does not influence job satisfaction of hotel customer -contact employees, but there is a strong relationship between followership style and the level of courageous follower behavior demonstrated. Study limitations,, implications for future research and recommendations for practice are also discussed.

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
8,131
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
156
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Evaluation of a Paradigm: The Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Attributes on Hotel Customer-Contact Employee Job Satisfaction

  1. 1. THE EVALUATION OF A PARADIGM: THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES AND COURAGEOUS FOLLOWER ATTRIBUTESON HOTEL CUSTOMER-CONTACT EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION by Terry Fobbs KEITH GRANT, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair LISA BARROW, D.M., Committee Member ABDUL KAISSI, D.M., Committee Member Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D., Interim Dean, School of Business and Technology A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Capella University April 2010 
  2. 2. UMI Number: 3403225 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3403225 Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
  3. 3. © Terry Fobbs, 2010
  4. 4. AbstractThis study examined the statistical relationship between followership style (Kelley, R.E.,The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followerswho lead themselves, 1992) and courageous follower attributes (Dixon, E. N., Anexploration of the relationship of organizational level and measures of followerbehaviors. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville,Alabama, 2003), and the influence of followership style on the job satisfaction, (Spector,P.E., Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences, 1997) on hotelcustomer-contact employee job satisfaction. The premise of this research was the certainfollowership styles would exhibit more courageous follower attributes than others, forexample exemplary followers would demonstrate more courageous follower attributesthan conformist followers. The second premise was that there was a statisticalrelationship between followership style and hotel customer-contact employee jobsatisfaction. An on-site group administration of the three survey instruments wasconducted to collect data to determine the level of courageous follower attributes,demographics, reported followership style and level of job satisfaction of the entirepopulation of customer-contact employees of a small Canadian high-end luxury hotel andresort chain. The univariate analysis of job satisfaction revealed high dissatisfaction withnature of work and organizational communication and that nearly two thirds of therespondents self-reported as exemplary followers. The study found that there was astatistical relationship between followership style and courageous follower attributes,indicating that the two constructs of followership style, independent critical thinking andactive engagement had a direct bearing on the level of courageous follower behaviors
  5. 5. displayed, and that all followership styles did display these behaviors to some extent. Thestudy also found that demographics had no main effect overall on job satisfaction, exceptfor some facets and that followership style had no effect on job satisfaction except for thefacet of nature of work. The principal conclusions of the study being that overall,followership style does not influence job satisfaction of hotel customer –contactemployees, but there is a strong relationship between followership style and the level ofcourageous follower behavior demonstrated. Limitations of the study, implications forfuture research and recommendations for practice are also discussed.
  6. 6. Dedication I want to dedicate this paper to my Heavenly Father and His Son, my Lord andSavior Jesus Christ. It was through their love, support, blessings, and answers to prayerthat I was able to overcome many trials and tribulations of health, employment, andpersonal tragedy to reach this major milestone in my life. To them I give my love and theglory. I dedicate this work to my loving wife LeAnn for her unfailing love and support inseeing me through this arduous journey, and basically no life for the past four years plus,so I could be a PhD. Love you Honey! I dedicate this work to my mother, Geraldine J.Fobbs, for her unfailing love, support and prayers for all of my accomplishments. Thankyou Mama! I love you! I dedicate this work to my brothers, Evin and Kevin, and sisters,Cheryl and Angie and sister-in-law, Cheri, for their love and support for everything Ihave done. I love you all! I dedicate this work to my children: Monique, Angelique,Claudia, Sondra, Tamara, and Natalie, stepchildren: Carl, Danielle, Abigail; nieces andnephews: Katherine, Seann, Michael, Arndrea, Lori, Haley, Jesica and Cristy,grandchildren: Mercedes, Phoenix, Spencer and Jadyn, as my legacy and example toperseverance, excellence, hard work and dedication-“So let it be written-So let it bedone!” Love you! I dedicate this work to the memory of my late father, Booker TerryFobbs, for his example in my life and his love for me. Thank you Daddy! Love you! Ialso dedicate this work to memory of my late Uncle William (Brother) who was alwaysthere for me in my youth. Love you, Uncle Brother! Finally, I want to dedicate this workto my cousins, Candy, Veta, Suzette, Deborah, and Cindy, specifically and to the rest ofy’all generally, (because I am running out of room!) for all of your love and supportduring this PhD journey. Love you! iii
  7. 7. Acknowledgments I wish to acknowledge the following individuals: my mentor Dr. Keith Grant asthe Chair of my committee for his patience, encouragement wisdom and guidance tomake this part and final part of my PhD journey possible; Dr. Abdul Kaissi and Dr. LisaBarrow, the other members of my committee for their invaluable assistance and guidancein helping me through this process; Mr. Ira Chaleff, Executive Coaching and ConsultingAssociates for his insight into the nature of followership; Dr. Robert E. Kelley, Carnegie-Mellon University and Dr. Eugene Dixon, East Carolina University for their input andassistance in the use of their survey instruments in my research, Ms. Kathline Holmes,President, Gailforce Human Resource Solutions for her friendship, support andinvaluable assistance in my research!; Mr. Terry Schneider, Mr. John LeBleu, Mr.Benjamin Leversedge, Ms. Kim Nau, Ms. Monique Smit and Ms. Laura Nutini for theirinvaluable assistance during the conduct of my research, thank you so much!; Dr. BruceDale, Dr. Bryan Ritchie and Dr. Lindon Robison, Michigan State University and theirfamilies, Rick Winder, George Owen, Dr. Mary Miller, Renee and Mike Arntz, NadineBrown-Uddin, Dr. Barbara Bolin, Deb LaPine, Bobbi Woods, Mary Lou Mason, VickyGarcia, Russ Hicks, Tristan Harrington and Dave and Cassie Quarnberg, for theirinvaluable support, love, friendship and encouragement during this PhD journey, Dr.Cherice Montgomery, Brigham Young University and Dr. Laura Ann Migliore for theirfriendship and support, Mr. Ronald R. Farr and Ms. Rita Canady, my supervisors whohave always given me encouragement and support in this effort, Major General (retired)Robert W. Smith III and his wife Linda, Jim and Joanne Peppiattt-Combes, Dr. JohnZappala, Central Michigan University and his wife Shirley and Major (retired) Deanna iv
  8. 8. Sinclair who have given me their love, support and prayers every step of the way, Dr.Diane Bandow who is an icon to me for her support of my journey, my faithful pet catBootsie and my late pet cat Candy, for staying up with me during coursework,comprehensive examination and dissertation writing late nights to early mornings, myCapella PhD support group- fellow PhD candidate, soon to be Dr. Elyse Jurman and Dr.Kristi Dean, who have been great and dear friends who have become a second family tome and all of my other friends whom I cannot name, because there is no more room, butwhose love, support and prayers have lifted me on eagle’s wings during this entirejourney. You know who you are, I know who you are and Heavenly Father knows whoyou are! Thanks to each and everyone one of you. I could not have done it without you! v
  9. 9. Table of Contents Acknowledgments iv List of Tables ix List of Figures xCHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction to the Problem 1 Background of the Study 2 Statement of the Problem 3 Purpose of the Study 5 Rationale 6 Research Questions 8 Significance of the Study 11 Definition of Terms 12 Assumptions and Limitations 15 Nature of the Study 17 Organization of the Remainder of the Study 18CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20 Introduction 20 Overview of Leadership Versus Followership-Which is More Important? 21 Analyzing and Synthesizing Definitions of Followership 26 Followership Interactions, Attributes, and Styles 33 Followership Attributes Not Associated with Followership Styles 41 Followership Styles and Associated Behavioral Attributes 49 vi
  10. 10. Leadership Concepts and Followership 72 Analysis of Transformational and Servant Leader Concepts 74 Analysis of Transformational and Servant Leadership 80 Job Satisfaction and Followership 84 Job Satisfaction Theoretical Performance and Supporting Research 86 Follower-Leader Interaction and the Influence on Follower Job Satisfaction 92CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 96 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 96 Research Design 96 Sample 97 Setting 98 Instrumentation, Variables, and Levels of Measurement 99 Data Collection 106 Treatment/Intervention 107 Data Analysis 107 Validity and Reliability 108 Ethical Considerations 117CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 119 Purpose of the Study 119 Data Collection and Setting 119 Section 1: Descriptive Statistics 121 Section 2: Hypothesis Testing 125 Section 3: Conclusion 134 vii
  11. 11. CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 135 Research Overview 135 Research Questions 136 Hypotheses Tested 136 Setting and Sample 138 Instrumentation and Data Collection 140 Discussion of Findings 142 Conclusions of Hypotheses Testing and Evaluation 145 Limitations of the Study 151 Implications for Future Research 154 Recommendations for Practice 156 Conclusion 158REFERENCES 160APPENDIX A. THE FOLLOWERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 174APPENDIX B. THE FOLLOWER PROFILE 181APPENDIX C. THE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY 194 viii
  12. 12. List of TablesTable 1. Relationship of Followership Style to Followership Questionnaire Scores 66Table 2. Dixon’s (2003) Follower Profile Matrix 100Table 3. JSS Facets and Subscale Contents 104Table 4 Factor Analysis of Kelley’s (1992) Followership Questions 113Table 5 Internal Consistency/Reliability for the Job Satisfaction Survey 116Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Employees 121Table 7. Respondents’ Followership Profile and Style 123Table 8. Job Satisfaction Survey Responses 124Table 9. Results of Kruskal-Wallis-Test 126Table 10 MANCOVA Multivariate Tests (c) 127Table 11 MANCOVA Test of Between Subjects Effects 128Table 12 MANCOVA Pair-wise Comparisons 132Table 13 Correlations Analysis Results 133Table 14 Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire 141Table 15 Survey Key-The Followership Questionnaire 141Table 16 Survey Key-Job Satisfaction Survey 142Table 17 Revised Survey Key and Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire 155 ix
  13. 13. List of FiguresFigure 1. Seven Paths to Followership 30Figure 2. Dimensional Relationships of Followership Styles 51Figure 3. Followership Styles 65Figure 4. The Theoretical Model 87Figure 5. Job Characteristics Model 90Figure 6. Heuristic Model 91Figure 7. Followership Styles and Scoring 102 x
  14. 14. CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Organizations are seeking various ways to improve the delivery of customerservice, especially in the hotel industry. With all things being equal, customer-focusedservice has been the determining factor for many hotel patrons. The question theseorganizations face is: How do you motivate the workforce to deliver consistent highquality service? Chains such as Marriot International have long focused on the employeeas the critical link in providing consistent high quality customer-focused service. Theorganizational culture known as the Marriott Way has a simple mantra from the words ofthe founder J. Willard Marriott, “Take care of your employees and they will take care ofyour customers” (Marriott International, 2009). However, some articles have focusedfrom the perspective of the senior leader on how this is done, but not from the viewpointof the customer-contact employee (Greger & Peterson, 2000; Gregersen & Black, 2002;Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998). The literature is replete with several examples that demonstrate a connection toleadership and the quality of customer service, (Chowdary & Saraswat, 2003; Gerhardt,2006; Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005; Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz & Niles-Jolly, 2005).Other research studies have demonstrated that there is a correlation with transformationalleadership, employee commitment and employee satisfaction (Emery & Barker, 2007),transformational leadership, employee satisfaction and customer service (Heskett, Sasser& Schlesinger, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1991) and transformationalleadership and organizational culture (van Bentum & Stone, 2005). 1
  15. 15. However, the examination of employee job satisfaction through the lens offollowership versus leadership is both a research and theoretical challenge since the focusof many research studies is based on leadership theories (Kelley, 1992, 2008). Background of the Study Paradigms of organizational behavior and theory focus on hierarchal structure,power and authority. For example, Bierstadt asserts social power being defined as groupsociological dominance coupled with the ability to employ force (Bierstadt, 1950).Bierstadt differentiates power as a sociological concept, whereas dominance ispsychological. The author asserted that power is not a component of prestige, but that thereverse is true. The author further asserted that there is a clear distinction betweeninfluence and power. Power is coercive and requires submission, whereas influence ispersuasive and submission is voluntary. This concept provides three definitions of power,force and authority as they relate to the concept of social power. Power is the ability toemploy force or sanctions and force is the actual manifestation of power. Authority isassociated with organizational status or position that has the ability to exercise control orcommand over other organizational members (Bierstadt, 1950). Emerson argued that social power is power dependence, balancing relationshipsthat lend themselves to processes leading to the formation of groups that in turn lead topower relations that evolve into coalitions that bestow limited legitimized power(authority), status, group norms, and prescribed roles by coalition members. The theorytreats participants in these power dependence relationships as actors in a power-network.The hypothetical values measuring the motivational measurement of group members in 2
  16. 16. power relationships seeking balance is based upon the values placed upon mutualdependence and the values the actors placed on their perceptions of who has power, whodoes not, and who should be given authority (Emerson, 1962). Vanagunas, citing Weber, argued that organizational power relationships fell intothree categories of: (a) traditional authority that is based on a belief system where thoseexercising authority are authorized to do so based on established tradition; (b)rational/legal authority where those exercising authority are authorized to do so based onestablished normative rules; and finally (c) charismatic authority, that is bestowed uponan individual by the devotion of his or her followers based on that individual’s exemplaryor exceptional actions, sanctity or heroism and normative order or patterns ordained bythat individual (Vanagunas, 1989). Statement of the Problem The literature has clearly detailed the effects and influence of leadership style andattributes on organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment and employee motivation (Bass & Bass, 2008; Emery & Barker, 2007;Flood, et.al, 2000; Gerhardt, 2006; Miller, 2007;Walumba, F., Orwa, B., Wang, P. &Lawler, J., 2005). Research has detailed the established relationships between leadershipand followership (Beckerleg, 2002; Dixon, 2003; Pack 2001; Ricketson, 2008; Vrba,2008). Greger and Peterson argued that with the advent of globalization and the necessityfor travel, hotel customers seek not only great accommodations but service to match. Thecompetition for the business traveler is fierce and the common denominator with all 3
  17. 17. things being equal, (i.e. facilities, location, amenities), is good customer service (Greger& Peterson, 2000). The pressure of competitive forces and shrinking market share have forced hotelfirms to examine what motivates customer-contact employees to deliver service thatexceeds the customer’s expectations and determine what type of employee is requiredthat is sufficiently motivated and have the organizational commitment to deliverexceptional customer service. The service industry has come to the realization that inorder to remain competitive, just meeting customer expectations is simply not enoughanymore and that the major factor in employee motivation in providing quality customerservice, especially in the hotel industry is leadership (Chang, 2006; Greger & Peterson,2000; Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998). However, the literature shows that little research has been conducted thataddresses the influence of followership style and attributes on organizationaleffectiveness, employee job satisfaction, employee commitment, and organizationalperformance (Chaleff, 2003, Kelley, 1992, 2008; Pack, 2001). Specifically, the literatureis silent on research that addresses the influence of followership style (Kelley, 1992) andcourageous follower attributes (Chaleff, 2003; Dixon, 2003) on customer-contactemployee job satisfaction. The problem is that there is insufficient knowledge in the service industry ingeneral and the hotel industry in particular, regarding how the followership styles andcourageous follower attributes of their customer-contact employees influence their jobsatisfaction. This gap in knowledge makes it difficult to evaluate the full effectiveness of 4
  18. 18. new and established programs to improve employee job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment (Chaleff, 2008; Jaussi, Stepfanovich & Devlin, 2008; Uken, 2008). Research is needed to determine the influence of followership style as outlined byKelley (1992) and courageous follower attributes as operationalized by Dixon (2003) oncustomer-contact employee job satisfaction in order to address the gap in the body ofknowledge. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study will be to test the hypothesis that hotel customer-contactemployees who perceive they are exemplary or star followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) willexhibit greater level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) and display greaterlevels of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997) than those employees who perceive themselvesto be passive followers (sheep), conformist followers (yes-people), alienated followers or,pragmatic followers (pragmatist) (Kelley, 1992, 2008). The independent variables of exemplary followership, pragmatic followership,alienated followership, conformist followership and passive followership (Kelley, 1992)as measured by The Followership Questionnaire (TFQ) will be compared with thedependent variables of five followership behaviors: (a) courage to assume responsibility,(b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (d) courage to participate intransformation, and (e) courage to leave as measured by The Follower Profile (TFP;Dixon, 2003) to determine population distribution differences. In the second part of the study, the independent variables of exemplaryfollowership style, pragmatic followership style, alienated followership style, conformist 5
  19. 19. followership style and passive followership style (Kelley, 1992) as measured by TheFollowership Questionnaire (TFQ) will be compared with ten dependent variables of jobsatisfaction as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) to determineany correlations. The ten facets of job satisfaction will be addressed later in chapter 2. For the purpose of this study, a customer-contact employee being defined as anemployee in the service industry who has direct personal contact with a customer(Aggarwal & Gupta, 2005, Gremler & Brown, 1996; Sergeant & Frenkell, 2000). Rationale The majority of the cited studies on transformational leadership style and theaffect on employee motivation and/or customer service (Chang, 2006; Emery & Barker,2007, Gerhardt, 2006; Jabnoun & Al Rasasi , 2005) all have viewed the transformationalleadership model through the objectivist epistemological lens that informed a positivisttheoretical perspective. The positivist theoretical perspective of these studies informed. aquantitative methodology through the use of surveys to test their hypotheses using thetransformational leadership model components as independent variables while usingcustomer satisfaction, employee job satisfaction, or organizational commitment asdependent variables and using a variety of statistical tools such as correlational analysis,analysis of variance (ANOVA) or liner regression to obtain a measurable, quantifiedfixed view of the relationships of the studied variables thus demonstrating positivistphilosophic assumptions (Barlett, 2005; Crotty, 2003; Fowler, 2003). The following studies, while not examining job satisfaction or thetransformational leadership model, have examined followership style and behavioral 6
  20. 20. attributes using similar research methods of the transformational leadership and jobsatisfaction studies (Baker; 2006; Bell, 2007; Colangelo, 2000; Dixon, 2003; Ray, 2006;Vrba, 2008). These researchers took an objectivist epistemological stance that in turninformed their positivist theoretical perspective in explaining their theory of followershipstyle and attributes. This perspective is indicated by the categorization of the theory’sfollowership styles and attributes as independent and dependent variables to be used in aquantitative research study to prove their hypothesis. The level of analysis embodied inthe theory is that of individuals and groups (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 2003; Holton III &Burnett, 2005). The behavioral attributes and followership styles is observed through the lens of apositivist theoretical perspective. This theoretical perspective quantifies and measures acause and effect relationship that informs a quantitative research methodology usingstatistical tools to analyze the observations (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 2003; Holton III &Burnett, 2005). The problem statement identifies job satisfaction, followership style andcourageous follower attributes observable behaviors that will be the subject of research.Previous research has indicated that these attributes can best be observed, measured andanalyzed using statistical tools to determine the extent of cause and effect relationshipsand the predictability of behavior (Baker; 2006; Bell, 2007; Colangelo, 2000; Dixon,2003; Ray, 2006; Spector, 1997; Vrba, 2008). By replicating the proven methods and philosophic assumptions in these previousstudies, the use of a factorial design (Russ-Eft & Hoover, 2005) and a multiple analysisof variance coupled with a correlational analysis will provide an objective, measurable 7
  21. 21. and fixed view of how: (a) followership style as independent variables affect followershipbehaviors the dependent variables, (b)followership style as independent variables affecthotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction as dependent variables, and (c) howfollowership style and behaviors as independent variables affect hotel customer-contactemployee job satisfaction as dependent variables. These tools are a proven anddemonstrated research tool in behavioral research (Henderson & Denison, as cited byBates, 2005). While the study is not examining all variables associated with customerservice such as facilities, location and availability of rooms, the correlational concept willmove closer in determining if there is a causality relationship between the quality ofcustomer service and followership style in a future research study. In addition, Fowler (2003) stated that “the purpose of a survey is to producestatistics that is a quantitative or numerical description about some aspects of the studypopulation” (p. 1). Barlett (2005) argued that survey research is used to collectinformation from individuals in order to evaluate and measure organizationally relevantconstructs. Spector (1997) asserts that measurements of job satisfaction are quantitativeconstruct facets of attitudes and perceptions, making them perfect candidates forstatistical analysis using surveys. Research Questions The purpose of research questions is to specifically focus the efforts of theresearcher and provide a framework in which to design the research to address theproblem (Creswell, 2003; Swanson, 2005). The proposed research provides such a focus 8
  22. 22. and framework to examine the influence of followership styles and courageous followerattributes on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. Phase 1: Research Question: Are The Follower Profile (TFP) measured indicators of followership behavior thesame for all followership styles of hotel customer-contact employees? Phase 1 Research HypothesesHypotheses using the Kruskal-Wallis test:Null Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the distribution of courage to assumeresponsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate intransformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for exemplary versuspragmatic versus alienated versus conformist versus passive followership styles of hotelcustomer-contact employees.Alternate Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in the distribution of courage to assumeresponsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate intransformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for exemplary versuspragmatic versus alienated versus conformist versus passive followership styles of hotelcustomer-contact employees. Phase 2: Research Question: What is the correlation between exemplary, pragmatic, alienated, conformist andpassive followership styles and hotel first line customer-contact employee jobsatisfaction? 9
  23. 23. Phase 2 Research HypothesesHypotheses tested using correlation and multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA) MANCOVA Analysis: DDV= demographic data as control variablesNull Hypothesis predicts that DDV will not interact with hotel customer-contactemployee job satisfaction variables.Alternate Hypothesis: predicts that DDV will interact with hotel customer-contactemployee job satisfaction variables Correlation AnalysisNull Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between exemplary followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 2: There is a correlation between exemplary followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Null Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between pragmatic followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 3: There is a correlation between pragmatic followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Null Hypothesis 4: There is no correlation between alienated followership style hotelcustomer-contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 4: There is a correlation between alienated followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Null Hypothesis 5: There is no correlation between conformist followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. 10
  24. 24. Alternate Hypothesis 5: There is a correlation between conformist followership style andhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Null Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between passive followership style and hotelcustomer-contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 6: There is a correlation between passive followership style and fhotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. The two phases of the research study examines the relationship of followershipstyle and courageous follower attributes to one another and their influence on hotelcustomer-contact employee job satisfaction. The first phase using the Kruskal-Wallis test,examines whether measured indicators of courageous followership behavior is the samefor all followership styles of hotel customer-contact-employees. The second phase of theresearch study first uses a multiple analysis of co-variance (MANCOVA) to determine ifparticipant demographics will have an effect on the dependent variable of jobsatisfaction. The next step following this analysis will be to determine if using acorrelational analysis examines the correlational relationship between exemplary,pragmatic, alienated, conformist, and passive followership styles on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. Significance of the Study This study will provide an in-depth view of how followership style and attributesinfluences job satisfaction from the viewpoint of the follower on hotel customer-contactemployee job satisfaction. As previously stated, several other studies have demonstratedthat there is a strong relationship between followership style and attributes and leadership 11
  25. 25. perceptions and style and organizational performance (Bell, 2007; Deckert, 2007; andPitron, 2008) while some studies have been singularly focused on how transformationalleadership style has been successful in motivating customer-contact employees deliverquality customer service in hospitals (Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005); in the retail industry(Gerhardt, 2006), and in the banking and retail food industry (Emery & Barker, 2007). Other studies have demonstrated from the follower viewpoint how employee jobsatisfaction is crucial in providing quality customer service, (Hallowell, Schlesinger &Zormitsky, as cited by Gerhardt, 2006); Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997;Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1991) but the literature is relatively silent on theexamination of job satisfaction of hotel customer-contact employees strictly from theviewpoint of the follower. However, this research study will provide an insight of theenhancement of hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction through anunderstanding of the influence of the employees’ followership style and key followershipbehavioral attributes, provide a means of improving organizational climate and culture,employee and leadership development and ultimately improving overall customer servicein this important sector of the service industry. Definition of Terms The following definitions are provided for these terms used throughout the studyto provide an understanding and context to the research and concepts presented in theliterature review. • Alienated follower. These followers can think for themselves, are smart, but hasa great deal of negative energy. These are the organizational naysayers who view 12
  26. 26. themselves as mavericks, but are not team players and do not move in a positivedirection. They like to maintain the status-quo (Kelley, 1992, 2008). • Conformist follower. These followers are sometimes known as yes-people. Theyhave a great deal of positive energy, but look to the leader for direction, vision andthinking. They see themselves as doers, but are not innovative and see the leader asalways right regardless of possible negative moral consequences (Kelley, 1992, 2008) • Courageous follower. The courageous follower (Chaleff, 2003) for the purposeof this study is synonymous with the exemplary follower (Kelley, 1992, 2008). Thesefollowers think for themselves, have a great deal of positive energy, but question orchallenge a leader’s decision or vision, especially if there are moral or ethical problems,but will always provide an innovative way to accomplish the project or improve upon aprocess a decision. This follower will support and sustain the leader if they buy-in to thatleader’s vision and decisions and serve as an organizational moral example. This followerwill also leave the organization if that organization’s culture violates that follower’s senseof values, morals and ethics (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992). • Courageous follower attributes. These attributes developed as part of the 56item The Follower Profile (TFP) instrument (Dixon, 2003) based on a non empiricalsurvey developed by Chaleff, 2003) are: courage to serve, courage to challenge, courageto assume responsibility, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave. • Customer-contact employee. An employee in the service industry who has directpersonal contact with a customer (Aggarwal & Gupta, 2005; Gremler & Brown, 1996;Sergeant & Frenkell, 2000). 13
  27. 27. • Exemplary or star follower. These followers can think for themselves, aresmart, and have a great deal of positive energy. They will question or challenge theleader, his or her vision and values if they think the organization is heading in the wrongdirection or in the organization or leader is engaged in activities that are in violation ofthe organization’s stated values or the follower’s personal values or both. However, thisfollower will always provide constructive feedback on innovative solutions to move theorganization forward or how the leader and organization can best live up to the values.These followers are team players and will support the team so long as the team is movingin a positive direction (Kelley, 1992, 2008). • Follower. For the purpose of the study a follower is an organizational or groupmember who interacts and reports to or accepts the authority of another group/organizational member who is designated as a leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kellerman, 2008;Kelley, 1992, 2008). • Followership. For the purpose of the study, followership is the affective,cognitive and metacognitive processes followers use in terms of style and behavioralattributes to interact with and/or influence the designated leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley,2008; Lord, 2008; Lord & Emrich, 2001). • Implicit leadership theory. A cognitive and meta-cognitive approach indescribing follower perceptions of leadership style of their leaders based upon theleader’s behavior towards them and the leadership style based upon behaviors manifestedby the leaders as a result of their perception of how leaders should interact with theirfollowers (Lord & Emrich, 2001). 14
  28. 28. • Job satisfaction. How employees feel about their jobs and the various aspects oftheir jobs (Spector, 1997). • Passive follower. These followers are viewed as not being able to think forthemselves and look to their leaders to motivate and direct them. They are content tofollow the direction, decisions and vision of the leader regardless where that directiontakes them (Kelley, 1992, 2008). • Pragmatic follower. These followers are smart and can think for themselves, butare always measuring the direction of the winds of the organizational political climatebefore they will take a stand. Their focus is always on what is in it for them or whatdecision will be for their best benefit (Kelley, 1992, 2008). Assumptions and Limitations Assumptions The study has the following assumptions: (a) the studied organizations willauthorize the study to be conducted at the selected locations, (b) the data collection willbe based on group administration of the selected instruments, (c) the author will obtainthe willing cooperation of a stratified random sample of sufficient statistical power toprovide statistically measurable results, (d) the organizational climate and culture at eachlocation will be similar so as to not cause significantly changes in customer-contactemployee perceptions of job satisfaction, (e) the demonstrated statistical reliability andvalidity of The Followership Survey, TFP and JSS in previous studies will remainconstant and will replicate the same statistical reliability and validity in this study, and (f) 15
  29. 29. normal distribution of the sample population of hotel customer-contact employees cannotbe assumed. Limitations The limitations to the study include sample size, selection of respondents,demonstrated validity of the data instruments, and threats to internal validity includingpossible selection-maturation interaction and selection (Ohlund & Yu, 1999) due to therespondents for the followership and employee satisfaction instruments will come fromthe same work areas. Additionally, the cultural backgrounds of customer-contactemployees who may be foreign nationals may also have an effect on their response to thequestionnaire based on their knowledge and understanding of the English language.These cultural influences are deliberately not being considered as control variables eventhough they may have an influence on the dependent variables, as some foreign bornrespondents may feel reluctant to identify their ethnicity because of a concern for privacyand their legal immigration status. Other limitations include the study may not begeneralized to other populations because the focus is solely on the perceptions of hotelcustomer-contact employees. Additionally, as there is not widespread use of the instruments involved in thisstudy (instrument validity and reliability notwithstanding), like the Pratt (2004) study, therisk of hidden tautologies in the tested hypotheses may lead to meaningless correlationalanalysis due to the ambiguity and complexity of the variables being tested. The self-reporting aspects of The Followership Questionnaire and The Follower Profile may leadto respondents answering questions in a way where they perceive that they are in a morefavorable light causing possible over reporting in certain categories. Further, as the data 16
  30. 30. will be gathered at one session at each location versus data being gathered over time in alongitudinal study, the stability of the observed empirical relationships cannot be firmlyconcluded. Nature of the Study The following is a synopsis of the nature of the study that provides a depiction ofthe study’s concept and research design. In order to replicate procedures obtained inmultiple studies that examine identical variables and similar statistical tools, the researchdesign of this study is a hybrid of the Colangelo (2003), Ricketson (2008) and Dixon(2003) studies. The Colangelo (2000) study examined followership style as compared toleadership style as opposed to employee job satisfaction. While the Ricketson, (2008) andDixon, (2003) studiers examined courageous follower attributes and leadership level asopposed to employee job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and courageous follower attributeswill be substituted as the dependent variables and followership style will serve as theindependent variable. A variant of The Followership Questionnaire used in the Colangelo(2000) study and a variant of The Follower Profile from the Deckert (2007) study will beused in this research study in order to reduce bias and provide clarity and understandingfor the instrument respondents. Details of the methodology and instrument characteristicswill be provided in greater detail in chapter 3. In the first phase of the study, the independent variables of exemplaryfollowership, pragmatic followership, alienated followership, conformist followershipand passive followership (Kelley, 1992) as measured by The Followership Questionnaire(TFQ) will be compared with the dependent variables of five followership behaviors: (a) 17
  31. 31. courage to assume responsibility, (b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (4)courage to participate in transformation, and (e) courage to leave as measured by TheFollower Profile (TFP; Dixon, 2003) to determine the population distribution using theKruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric version of the ANOVA and the results of theanalysis of the data. In the second phase of the study the independent variables of exemplaryfollowership, pragmatic followership, alienated followership, conformist followershipand passive followership (Kelley, 1992) as measured by The Followership Questionnaire(TFQ) will be compared with ten dependent variables of job satisfaction as measured bythe Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) to determine any correlations andpredictability using a Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson correlation test, linear regression, andthe results of the analysis of the data. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 will be the literature review detailing the definition and concept offollowership, followership styles and associated behaviors will be compared andcontrasted as well as an evaluation of followership at the individual, group andorganizational levels, an evaluation of the similarities and differences between the TLMand, servant leadership with a comparison and contrasting of the leader-followersinteractions peculiar to each leadership style. Job satisfaction will be analyzed based onthe influence of leadership and followership at the individual, group and organizationallevels as well as the various methods job satisfaction is quantitatively measured. 18
  32. 32. Chapter 3 will detail the methodology used in the study including the researchdesign, sample, the setting of the study, instrumentation and measures using the, TFQ(Kelley, 1992), TFP (Dixon, 2003) and JSS (Spector, 1997), data analysis, validity, andreliability of the TFQ, TFP, and JSS and ethical considerations of the study. Chapter 4will detail the results obtained in the research and chapter 5 will provide a discussion ofthe conclusions reached through the analysis of the data, implications for future researchand recommendations for practice. 19
  33. 33. CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction On playgrounds and soccer fields and other places around the world where childplay, the focus is on the leader: The captain of the team, the class president, thehomecoming queen. In the Steven Spielberg film, Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanksportrays an American Army Captain of Infantry leading a squad of men to find PrivateRyan, a member of the 101s Airborne Division, a sole surviving son and bring him backhome. Children as they jump rope, chant “Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief,Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief” outlining a path from riches to jail on one hand andsuccess and status on the other hand. Jack Bauer, of “24” fame, Indiana Jones on hismultiple adventures, and John Wayne, all conjure up visions of the great hero-leader, whohas come to save the day. But children never focus on being a poor man, a beggar man, a thief or a legalassistant, medical orderly or a lone Native-American warrior who is the last to catch thelate watch. Like children, adults in western society focus not on those that follow, but onthose that lead. Kelley (1992) is widely viewed as the seminal author on the concept offollowership. Kelley maintains that the great hero leader, a concept advanced by Carlyle(as cited by Kelley, 1992), in which the leader is the source of all wisdom, knowledge,power, and authority is a myth. A myth perpetuated by management schools, educationinstitutions, and a wide array of scholars and practitioners. Kelley argues that followersare truly the engine of the organization and leaders use influence to get the followers toperform in the manner they decide. The power ascribed to these leaders is what was givento them by the followers, not the other way around. For example, in the recent crash 20
  34. 34. landing of US Airways Flight 1549, Captain Chesley W. Sullenberger used his skill andtraining to bring the Airbus down safely on the Hudson River, but it was the flight crew(followers) who got the passengers out of the aircraft safely and kept them calm untilhelp arrived. In essence, it was followers who completed what Captain Sullenberger hadstarted. The literature review for this study will examine the premises of followershipstyle and courageous follower attributes and their influence on hotel customer-contactemployee job satisfaction by (a) analyzing and synthesizing definitions of followership;(b) evaluating, comparing, and contrasting followership interactions and associatedbehaviors at the individual, group and organizational levels; (c) evaluating, comparingand contrasting the influences and interactions of followership styles at the individual,group and organizational levels; (d) comparing and contrasting the similarities anddifferences of the Transformational Leadership Model (TLM), servant leadership andtheir influence on followers; (e) evaluating the various methods of how job satisfaction ismeasured; (f) evaluating the definitions of job satisfaction; and (g) analyzing the effectsof leadership and followership styles on employee job satisfaction at the individual,group and organizational levels. Overview of Leadership Versus Followership-Which is More Important? Leadership theories have used aspects of power and authority as assumptions indefining the relationships between the leader and the follower. For example, theTransformational Leadership Model (TLM) examines the relationship between the leaderand follower based on upon the leader’s influence and level of power sharing (Bass & 21
  35. 35. Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006) .The situational leadershiptheory asserts that the relationship between the leader and the follower is determined bythe level of the follower’s job experience or maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) whilethe contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967) is focused on the relationship of the leader andfollower based upon either the leader’s focus on task accomplishment or the relationshipbetween the leader and the follower. In the servant leadership concept, defined as leaderswillingly serve as servants to their followers, where the leader places follower interests,personal development, and empowerment foremost in the effort to achieve a sharedvision (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1998; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Laub, 1999, as cited bySmith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004). In terms of the interactions between leaders and followers, Northouse argued thatthe situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) and the contingency theoryof leadership (Fiedler, 1967) are leadership models that predict how leaders will behavebased upon certain designated situations. These models have dominated leadership andmanagement theory and have determined how organization lead and treat their followers.However, Northouse further asserted that organizations correctly focus more onbehavioral based approaches to leadership and leadership development. Servantleadership and the transformational leadership model meet that criteria as these twoleadership models focus more on leader behavior to influence and motivate followersversus a set formula of leadership actions based on certain situations (Northouse, 2007). In all cases, the thrust of the cited leadership theories is based on theorganizational effects from the standpoint of the leader, while the focus on the follower issecondary, but it can be argued that the Transformational Leadership Model and the 22
  36. 36. servant-leadership concept moves closer to follower focus that other leadership theoriesbecause of the emphasis on power-sharing (Bass & Bass, 2008; Laub, 1999; Miller, 2007;and Northouse, 2007). The one noted difference between the cited examples is the leader-member exchange where the focus is on the dyadic relationship between the leader andfollower where both parties have the power to influence each other (Graen & Uhl-Bien,1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne as cited by Gertsner & Day, 1997; Liden, Erodgan,Wayne & Sparrowe, 2006). Followership as a Primary Focus The nature of followership then is not secondary but should be a primary focus.Because of power differential between leaders and followers and levels of responsibilityleaders have in organizations, much organizational research is focused through the lens ofleadership (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992). Brookfield, (1995) in his discussion on criticalreflection for teachers, argues that teachers have a leadership role in their classrooms,where they are to facilitate student learning through the lenses of the teacher’sautobiographical experiences, the student perspective, peer viewpoints, and theoreticalliterature. Critical reflection occurs through the assimilation of these various perspectiveswhile sharing power in the classroom with the student. Brookfield further argued that truelearning and enhanced student performance occurs when a teacher truly embraces thestudent’s viewpoints and willingly shares classroom power. The viewpoint of the studentto determine if student learning occurs is captured with the Critical IncidentQuestionnaire (CIQ; Brookfield, 1995). In this regard, the student is the follower and byextension in organizations outside of the classroom, this concept could provide a new 23
  37. 37. means of organizational relationship avenues to enhance organizational performancewhere the focus is more on the follower than that of the leader (Densten & Gray, 2001;Reynolds, 1999). Kelley argued that after over 10,000 studies and 2500 years of research,humankind has still failed to develop the perfect leader. The major religions havedemonstrated that followers are the true wielders of power and influence. The focus onleaders has relegated followers to either being apprentice leaders or sheep-likesubmissive subordinates, but the concept of leadership and followership actually existside by side. Citing the example of Cincinnatus, a Roman farmer and general who in 458B.C. was recalled to active duty to save Rome, and rather than accept the title of Leaderof the Empire after the battle was won, went back to his farm, content to being a commoncitizen. Kelley further argued the democratic experiment that became the United States ofAmerica demonstrated the power of the common citizen, the follower (Kelley, 1992,2008). If there is a problem facing the nation, Kelley asserted, it is because there is aproblem of followership, not leadership. In essence, we are responsible for hiring thosewho lead us. In our organizations, most people spend 70-90% of their time following and10-30% leading since all organizational members are followers regardless of their level inthe organization. Kelley argued that followership is a process consisting of seven pathsthat are reflective of self-expression and reflection and one that is shaped by relationshipswith others. These paths are aligned with five distinct followership styles (Kelley, 1992). 24
  38. 38. Leadership, Followership and Employee Job Satisfaction Several studies have demonstrated that the transformational leadership style is themost successful in motivating customer-contact employees to deliver quality customerservice in hospitals (Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005), in the retail industry (Gerhardt, 2006),and in the banking and retail food industry (Emery & Barker, 2007). While otherfollower-focused research has demonstrated that employee job satisfaction is crucial inproviding quality customer service (Hallowell, Schlesinger & Zormitsky, as cited byGerhardt, 2006; Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry,1991). One follower based study examined follower motivation and job satisfactionamong secondary schoolteachers (Webb, 2007). A few research studies have examinedthe influence of followership style and attributes on organizational performance andorganizational leader behavior (Bell, 2007; Deckert, 2007; Pitron, 2008). Others havefocused on the influence of followership style and attributes on team development and oroperationalized instruments to measure followership styles and attributes (Dixon, 2003;McSkimming, 2006). While some research studies have focused on the relationshipbetween leader behavior and followership style (Bearden, 2008; Beckerleg, 2002;Colangelo, 2000; Kilburn, 2007; Vrba, 2008). However, there are few if any studies thatexamine how followership style and attributes impact customer-contact employee jobsatisfaction in the hotel industry. Chaleff (2003) takes the concept of followership styles even deeper by thedevelopment of six specific followership behavioral attributes that are aligned with thedynamics of the leader-follower relationship. Both Chaleff and Kelley focus on the role 25
  39. 39. of the influence of followers on organizations through the lens of followership as theprimary versus secondary focus (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992). Analyzing and Synthesizing Definitions of Followership Kelley (1992) is viewed as the seminal author of followership. His work outlinesseven paths to followership and five styles of followership that will be covered shortly. Inan earlier work, Kelley (1988) argued that followers and leaders are merely roles thatpeople within organizations play and while these roles dominate the lives of people, onlythe leadership aspect dominates the thinking, while followers and followership isrelegated into the background. Kelley asserted that an effective follower is less of asubordinate, who waits for guidance and orders to be obeyed without question and moreof a team member and trusted advisor who is self-managed, committed to theorganization, and a principle and purpose separate from themselves, are competent andself-improving, while applying that competence for maximum organizational effect andhave moral courage, credibility and integrity. He acknowledged that not all leaders wantthese types of effective followers and would rather have passive followers who do as theyare told or those who enthusiastically support their decisions or agendas without question(Kelley, 1988). Kelley (2008) argued that the concept of followers being inferior, passive beingswho like a blank slate, are in dire need of the leader’s protection, direction, andmotivation in order to be effective and contribute to the organization is outdated and notrelevant to today’s organizational realities. Maroosis (2008) described followership as adiscipline, where the follower maintains a state of readiness to act and to learn by giving 26
  40. 40. and receiving feedback, where the leader is more like a teacher and the follower is thelearner. However, depending on the situation, the follower may become the teacher, andthe leader becomes the student. Maroosis introduced the moral component to the leaderand follower relationship where both are responsible for moral actions and thinking aswell as being partners in organizational change and being part of a transformative process(Maroosis, 2008). In contrast, Rost viewed followership as an irrelevant, dysfunctional, anddestructive concept in the postindustrial world. He simply defined followers as peoplewho follow and followership is a process that is used to follow. He contends that thisprocess is separate and distinct from the process leaders use to lead. He asserts thatcollaborative leadership is not followership and that the use of the term follower is ananathema to many leaders who by training, education, and culture have a very negativeperception of a follower. For many of them, an effective follower is one who does whatthey are told, is loyal to the leadership, and enthusiastically carries out their instructions.In order for the concept of followers and followership to be accepted, he asserts the termsmust be changed in order to gain positive acceptance, as many people still see followersand leaders and followership and leadership as separate and distinct entities with noconnection and no real relevance to each other, other than their separate and distinctorganizational roles (Rost, 2008). Atchison (2004) viewed followership and followers on the basis on what theleader can bring to them with the followers being dependent upon the leader forinspiration, recognition of achievements, direction, and character that inspires trust. Thisview differs from that of Rost who sees no connection and Kelley who views the leader- 27
  41. 41. follower relationship as almost symbiotic. Kellerman (2008) argued that there is a globalawakening for followers who realize that power is not vested in the few, but is availableto the many. This does not mean that the world is descending into mob rule, but that “TheGreat Man” theory of leadership is dead and that in order for societies or organizations tobe successful and thriving, leaders must be cognizant of the wants, needs and concerns ofthose they lead as well as be willing to share power in terms of empowering theirfollowers to be co-captains of their own destiny. Chaleff (2003) takes the concept offollower empowerment even further and asserted that if followers are to be empowered,they must understand the power that is available to them and assume responsibility fornot only their roles, but that of their leaders. In the 1975 edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary a follower is defined as“(a) one in the service or another; (b) one that follows the opinions or teachings ofanother (and followership is defined as) the capacity or willingness to follow a leader’ (p.446, G & C, Merriam and Company, 1975). From these definitions it can be seen thatfollowers are more than just those who follow or serve as subordinates in an organization.Followers have a key role in both society and organizations and wield a measure ofinfluence that has an effect on the direction of a group, organization or even a society(Atkinson, 2004; Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992, 2008; Kellerman; 2008; Maroosis, 2008).This concept leads to a working definition of a follower who is an organizational orgroup member who interacts and reports to or accepts the authority of anothergroup/organizational member who is designated as a leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kellerman,2008; Kelley, 1992, 2008). Followership, therefore is defined as the affective, cognitive, 28
  42. 42. and metacognitive processes followers use in terms of style and behavioral attributes tointeract with and/or influence the designated leader (Chaleff, 2003, Kelley, 1992, 2008,Lord, 2008; Lord & Emrich, 2001). Paths to Followership Followership has been defined as the affective, cognitive and metacognitiveprocesses followers use in terms of style and attributes to interact with the designatedleader. Burns (1978) supports this definition by arguing that followership is activated bya perceived want or need of the follower, who is motivated to pursue that want or need byhis or her interaction with an individual who can fulfill it. That want or need may bepower, influence, recognition, a sense of belonging, a set of values or principles, temporalneeds, wants, or spiritual fulfillment. He further asserts that the follower and leaderinteraction is best defined as a relationship based upon mutuality where future motivesreplace those of the present that may be already fulfilled or blocked by currentcircumstances. This sense of mutuality between the leader and follower leads to a greatersense of follower empowerment and organizational effectiveness (Bass, Avolio, Jung &Benson, 1994; Jablin, 1980; Miller, 2007; Nahabetian, as cited by Bass & Bass, 2008;Pelz, as cited by Bass & Bass, 2008; Ronken & Lawrence, as cited by Bass & Bass,2008). Both Burns (1978) and Bass and Bass (2008) have highlighted the affective,cognitive and meta-cognitive actions that motivate individuals to become followers.These motivations are viewed as being framed through the lenses of self-expression,personal goals, relationships, and self-transformation (Kelley, 1992). Kelley asserted thatthe lens of self-expression is used by individuals who walk the loyalist or lifeway paths to 29
  43. 43. followership. The dreamer and apprentice paths are used by those whose paths tofollowership are shaped by personal goals. Those individuals whose paths to followershipare based on relationships use the comrade or mentee paths. Those that seek to transformthemselves follow the disciple path to followership. Kelley further argued that theseindividual motivations fly in the face of conventionally held paradigms that maintain thatpeople follow because of a leader’s motivation or vision. Figure 1 demonstrates howthese seven paths to followership and the lenses of perception are characterized:Figure 1. Seven Paths to Followership 30
  44. 44. Kelley asserted some people are motivated to contribute their skills and abilitiestoward achieving organizational goals, are for the most part comfortable with theiraccomplishments, talents and current lifestyle. These individuals generally viewfollowership through the lens of expressing oneself. One path is that of the loyalist. Thisis based on a deep emotional commitment to another where the follower is in a positionof trust and confidence, where there is a bond of integrity and a one-to-one relationship.The other path is that if the lifeway, where the individual chooses this path out ofpersonal preference. Kelley argued that this follower’s motivation is simply to serveothers and the primary interest is for another versus self. This may manifest itself asothers being content to be in the background supporting and encouraging others on theirroad to success. They are happy to be where they are and they need no more. Kelleyreferred to this metacognitive concept as enoughness (Kelley, 1992). The next lens is that of personal relationships. Kelley argued that someindividuals treasure interpersonal relationships more than the pursuit of goals and dreams.The strength and bond of friendships and group interaction have more personal meaning,provide more motivation, and provide more intrinsic rewards than any extrinsic ones.One path is that of the comrade. The bonds between comrades are forged by life changingcircumstances. Examples include students in a rigorous doctoral program, those engagedin life threatening occupations such as law enforcement, firefighting and the military, orthose who are working together for a good cause such as a medical team or a sports teamat a championship game. Kelley explained that the affective, metacognitive and cognitiveprocesses that evolve around comradeship are based on the intimacy associated withbelonging. In this case, it is not the leader where most of the interaction occurs, it is 31
  45. 45. relationships and interactions between the followers themselves. In contrast, Kelleyasserted that the mentee has a developmental and emotional one on one relationship withthe leader. The follower in this instance surrenders himself or herself to the influence ofthe leader. The developmental aspect is not that of skills, but of personal maturation andthe mentor then can shape and direct the skills of the mentee to the achievement ofpersonal satisfaction and growth (Kelley, 1992). The next lens, asserted Kelley, is one that is shaped by personal goals. Theseindividuals have a sense of drive to achieve a life’s goal. This motivates them to seekpaths of followership that serve as a vehicle to achieve these goals. One path is that of theapprentice. Unlike the mentee where the focus is relationships and personal maturation,the apprentice seeks to develop and improve skills that will assist him or her insucceeding in the chosen profession. This focus includes learning from a skilled leaderwho will assist the apprentice to succeed in his or her learning. In the case of the militaryas an example, the follower is an apprentice leader, learning to follow in order to learnhow to lead, thus satisfactory service at each lower level leads to positive considerationfor elevation to the next level. The other path is that of the dreamer. Unlike theapprentice, the dreamer is focused solely on the dream, with the leader taking a secondaryrole or no role at all. The only guiding force for the dreamer, according to Kelley is theachievement of the dream itself. Kelley refers to this affective process as internalization.If the goals of the dreamer and organization coincide, then there is a good fit. If the goalsdo not coincide, then there is conflict and in many cases for the follower, disappointmentand a change of careers to one that coincides with the dream (Kelley, 1992). 32
  46. 46. The final lens is that of self-transformation and the path of discipleship, whereunlike the mentor to mentee relationship, the teacher passes on a body of knowledge to agroup of students and the maturation is not personal or emotional, but intellectual instead.Discipleship follows the metacognitive process of identification. The disciple want to bepart of something larger than themselves and give up who they are to become part ofsomething better and more important that their individual selves. At the organizationallevel, disciples serve as valuable transporters of organizational knowledge and cultureand can serve as missionaries to others carrying forth messages of organizational changefrom the leadership (Kelley, 1992). Followership Interactions, Attributes, and Styles Much has been said, written and researched about leadership styles, attributes andthe interactions leaders have with their followers, but, strictly through the lens of theleader’s perspective. For example, in the situational leadership model (SLM; Hersey &Blanchard, 1982) where the influence of the leader is important in follower developmentin accomplishing designated tasks, the premise behind the SLM is that leadershipbehavior and style can be predicted based upon the developmental or readiness level ofthe follower and the difficulty of the task to be performed. In another example, thecontingency theory (Fiedler, 1969) like the SLM predicted leadership style based onsituations and like the SLM, there is a variable that includes task structure. However,unlike the SLM, the contingency theory does not examine the developmental level andwillingness of the follower to complete the task. The contingency theory includes thevariable of the position power of the leader and the relationship the leader has with the 33
  47. 47. follower. The position is based on the official and legal authority the leader has to meteout rewards and punishments to the followers. Leader-follower or leader-memberrelations (LMR) are the attitude and feelings that exists between the leader and thefollower(s) (Fiedler, 1969). There is little to no focus on the attitudes, perceptions or effective/ineffectivefollowership style from these examples. The key to understanding the effect followershave on leaders and organizations is to first examine the nature of follower-leaderinteractions and secondly examine positive and negative behavioral attributes offollowers (Kelley, 1992; Lord, 2008). Follower-Leader-Interactions Chaleff asserted that followers operate on four different levels in terms of theirinteractions within organizations. Chaleff argued that on the first level, the follower is adedicated “other focused” servant serving internal and external organizationalstakeholders. On the second level, the follower juggles the ability to simultaneously servethemselves, organizational leaders, internal, and external stakeholders with no apparentconflict of interests. On the third level, followers turn towards being completely self-serving, ignoring the needs of organizational stakeholders, while serving themselves andorganizational leaders. Chaleff argued that at this level, the seeds of organizational failureare planted. At the fourth level self-serving behavior of the follower can be described asunethical and/or immoral behavior. It is at this level the follower only serves the leaderwhile permitting that leader to engage in unethical and/or immoral behavior that harmsthe organization and its stakeholders, while at the same time engaging in the samebehavior themselves (Chaleff, 2003). 34
  48. 48. With these levels of follower organizational interaction as a backdrop, Kellerman(2008) posited why people follow. Kellerman (2008), citing Freud from his book Mosesand Monotheism, reported that Freud asserted people follow for four reasons. The firstreason is that people have a strong need for authority that, secondly, is derived from ourearliest relationship with a strong dominant male figure, usually the father. Third, peoplefollow because of the connection between one’s need for authority and the need forreligion deriving from our first submissive relationship to parents. Finally, people followbecause of the nature of power relationships where there is envy and admiration on onehand and loathing and fear on the other (Kellerman, 2008). In contrast, Kellerman argued that people follow because of human desires suchthe need to belong, having a sense of togetherness, being loved and having a sense ofsafety and community. She asserted since humans are social creatures, the need for groupbelonging is strong, hence the desire to follow other followers and playing the part of thefollower meets at least some of those needs and it is in one’s best interest to do so. Inessence, “followers follow not only because it is in their interest to conform to theirleaders, but also it is in their interests to conform to their fellow followers… [byproviding]…crucial reference points” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 56). Kellerman’s argument suggests that the nature of followership is behavioral basedand dependent on the social, emotional and temporal needs of the follower (Kellerman,2008). In contrast, Chaleff agreed that the nature of followership is behavioral, but heargues that unlike Freud, who asserts that in a secular way, human beings are seekingsome type of higher authority to obey and follow, human beings are socialized from earlychildhood to conform to obey and be compliant and submissive. In some cases, 35
  49. 49. nonconformity to this rigid societal framework can bring punishment or being ostracized.Here, the follower-leader relationship is like that of parent to child, where the follower isdependent and who cannot relate to the leader on an equal footing. He maintained it isnatural for human beings to seek to be courageous followers who retain their own senseof being, the right to be wrong and the right to retain their own interpretations of theirown experiences and perceptions (Chaleff, 2003). Kelley supported this premise in his argument that leadership can only takefollowers so far. He maintained that people have power that is inherently theirs toimprove themselves, maximize their potential and build upon the talents and abilities thatare also inherently theirs. In essence, people naturally follow, to learn, grow, strengthenand build up themselves, their organizations and the people around them and are eager toengage in those behaviors to bring those things to pass, provided they can break free ofthe socialization processes that have trapped them (Kelley, 1992). Townsend and Gebhardt in their examination of leadership, teamship andfollowership, argued that the nature of the relationships between leaders, teams andfollowership indicate that leadership is not a position, but a behavior. By extension,followership, like leadership is a behavior versus being a position. This view offollowership suggested affective and cognitive components to followership where thefollower establishes a framework for their own understanding of events and their socialworld (Townsend and Gebhardt, 2003). This process or sensemaking often dictates howfollowers perceive the leadership style displayed by their leaders and determines howthey will react to those perceptions (Lord, 2008). The implicit leadership theory (Lord &Emrich, 2001), strengthened this assertion by arguing that leaders display the leadership 36
  50. 50. style that they do, because, they perceive that the behaviors associated with that style areproper, effective and in keeping with the perceptions of the position power they wield.However, followers engage in metacognitive processes and develop constructs ofperceived leadership style, based upon their observations of the behaviors displayed bytheir leader or leaders (Lord & Emrich, 2001). In essence, leadership behavior is a function of the environment that includes asocial relationship and perception of the leader with the follower, the task involved, thecontext of the nature of the task, the feedback provided from the task accomplishment,and the follower. The leader can influence organizational learning by having situationalawareness of the factors that align organizational performance with social and safetyneeds of the followers. This in turn, requires the leader to know and understand his or herfollowers in order to obtain that awareness (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 2008; Lord & Emrich,2001; Townsend & Gebhardt, 2003). Lord and Emrich further argued that followers gain their perception of theirleaders through observation of the leader’s behavior and linking that observation to theirmental definition of the leader’s style or type. The leader on the other hand, behaves in acertain fashion based upon his or her perception of their personal implicit leadershiptheory. The authors posited that cognitive and metacognitive processes of both leader andfollower are not separate but linked together. These cognitive and metacognitiveprocesses then drive both the leader in influencing the followers and the followers ineither completing or not completing the tasks assigned to them by the leader (Lord &Emrich, 2001). When these processes are not synchronized, the result is the leader loses 37
  51. 51. influence and control of the organization and the followers pursue goals that may not bein the interest of the organization, leading to disastrous results (Kelley, 1988). Dvir and Shamir (2003) echoed Lord and Emrich’s argument and asserted thatleaders that demonstrate charismatic leadership must also demonstrate value congruencewith their followers in order for them to be effective and that effective leadership isdependent upon the match between a leader’s identity, values, and the cognitivestructures erected by the followers (Lord, Brown & Freiberg, 1999; Shamir & Howell, ascited by Dvir & Shamir, 2003). In an examination of transformational leadership, and follower personality,Schyns and Felfe (2006), argued that on the theoretical level, followers perceiving theirleaders as transformational tend to share those same characteristics. Their assumptionsare based on the evidence from three separate areas of research. The first is leaderprototypicality is defined as the leader’s displays attributes defining the group andrepresents the identity of the group (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg , de Cremer &Hogg, as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). This concept was demonstrated by the work ofHains, Hogg and Duck (as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006) and van Knippenberg, Lossieand Wilke (as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006) who found when group membership isimportant, followers perceive the leader as more effective and can exert more influenceon followers than leaders who do not share the same group membership. The second iscontagion where followers who have similar personalities as the leader are more likely toshare the same perception of the leader than those who do not (Meindl, 1993; Schneider,as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). The last concept is that of assumed similarity wherefollowers who tend to share certain leadership characteristics tend to see those same 38
  52. 52. characteristics within their own leaders (Cronbach, 1955; Watson, Hubbard & Wise, ascited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). The premises advocated by Schyn and Felfe (2006) were tested in a mixedmethods study by Ehrhart and Klein (2001). In this study of 267 college students, theauthors examined eight follower characteristics “achievement, risk-taking, self-esteem,need for structure, intrinsic work value, and extrinsic work value, interpersonal; relationswork value, security, work value and participation work value…”(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001,p. 157) and three leadership styles “charismatic, relationship-oriented and task-oriented”(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001, p. 157). The authors found that followers that were focused on high achievement hadpositive correlations with charismatic and task oriented leaders, but negative correlationswith relationship oriented leaders. Followers that exhibited risk taking characteristicsshowed a positive correlation with charismatic leaders, but negative correlations withrelationship and task oriented leaders. Followers that described themselves as having highself-esteem had positive correlations with charismatic and task-oriented leaders, butnegative correlations with relationship oriented leaders. Followers who indicated a needstructure showed negative correlations with charismatic and relationship oriented leadersand a positive correlation with task-oriented leaders. Followers who valued intrinsic workvalues such as work challenges; taking the initiative and taking responsibility showedpositive correlations with charismatic and task-oriented leaders. No hypothesis was madeconcerning the relationship-oriented leadership style (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001). Ehrhart and Klein found that followers who valued extrinsic work values such aswork hours, compensation, and fringe benefits showed a positive correlation with task- 39
  53. 53. oriented leaders. There were no hypotheses tested with charismatic and relationship-oriented leadership styles. Followers who valued the quality of interpersonal workrelationships showed positive correlations relationship and task-oriented leaders. Therewas no hypothesis tested with the charismatic leadership style. Followers that valued jobstability and security had positive correlations with relationship and task-oriented leaders.Finally, followers who displayed a high participation work value exhibiting influence,sharing decision making, and working for the mutual benefit for the organization, showedpositive correlations with charismatic and relationship-oriented leaders, but there was nohypothesis tested task-oriented leadership style (Ehrhart & Klein 2001). The results of the Ehrhart and Klein (2001) study were validated by Dvir andShamir (2003) whose longitudinal field study of 90 non-commissioned officers and 729recruits of the Israeli Defense Force revealed that the follower developmental constructsmotivation, empowerment, and morality resulted in a change in leader behavior basedupon follower shared perceptions of transformational leader attributes. However, insome cases the relationship became negative if leaders perceived that the followers whowere outside of the direct supervision were shown to be independent, innovative andcritical and thus posed a threat to that leader’s leadership. This negative relationshipresulted in a suppression of transformational leader attributes, both in actions by theleader, and perceptions by the indirect followers (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). Lord argued that the influence followers have on organizations is seen in thepremises of the complexity theory where structures spontaneously arise because of theinteraction between units. In the interactions between followers and leaders, emergentinternal structures arise as followers build their own self-perceptions or develop 40
  54. 54. perceptions of others. These emergent internal structures given rise to multiple internaland external emergent strictures outside of formally established organizational structuresthat build upon existing informational networks and collective knowledge structures thatare informal, yet weld power of their own, outside of the formally establishedorganizational power structure (Carver & Scheier, 2002; Cilliers, 1998: Sparrowe &Liden, as cited by Lord, 2008). This phenomenon can best be observed by the election ofa new Governor or President, who along with their new political appointees, have to copewith, and deal with, the existing bureaucracy and the permanent civil servants who buildnew networks or strengthen existing ones to maintain as much of the status quo aspossible. Followership Attributes Not Associated with Followership Style Effective Followers The literature has shown that the interactions between followers and leaders arenot simple and are indeed complex and have far reaching consequences for organizations.Lundin and Lancaster (1990) argued that leaders and organizations must establish anenvironment and culture that embraces the concept of empowered followership. Lundinand Lancaster asserted that in essence, helping organizational members to develop orstrengthen those follower attributes that will enhance their ability to develop theirabilities and make positive contributions to the organization. The authors further arguedthat effective followers have four key attributes. The first is integrity. While this is bothan individual and organizational value, integrity for the follower, according to theauthors, is both a demonstration of loyalty and acting according to one’s beliefs. The 41
  55. 55. second attribute is own the territory, meaning gaining and building an understanding ofthe organization and the contributions they make to the operational and strategic goals ofthe organization. The third is that of versatility. This means that the follower mustdemonstrate flexibility in both upgrading and modifying their skills to meetorganizational needs and being adaptable in addressing the waves of change they mayface. The final attribute is that of self-employment. This means that the follower mustassume personal responsibility for their personal development, careers, and actions,leaving them in a position to be effective followers while providing viable openings forother career options (Lundin & Lancaster, 1990). Followership Attributes as a Group Kellerman (2008) identified followership attributes that are more groupdescriptors than that of an individual group member. However, these descriptors mayapply to one individual who bands together with other like minded people. One exampleis this activist follower type.Activists Using the backdrop of the sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests in theBoston area and the subsequent cover-up by Church authorities, Kellerman described therise of the group called the Voice of the Faithful to illustrate her point. She asserts thatactivists are followers who are determined to be change agents. Activists demonstrate asa group they care deeply about their leaders, in the sense they are solidly behind them orthey want them to go. Activists are engaged, have a great deal of energy, and areextremely passionate. They are extremely involved in their cause, people and attendant 42
  56. 56. processes and will work very hard to support and sustain their leaders or to take action tooust them (Kellerman, 2008).Diehards The next follower group, Kellerman describes, is diehards. Using the backdrop ofOperation Anaconda, a military combat operation that occurred early in the war inAfghanistan, Kellerman examines the hardened Al Qaeda fighters and the United Statesmilitary, specifically senior and junior leaders within the 10th Mountain Division of theUnited States Army. Diehard followers are described as those who are willing to die ifnecessary for a cause or an individual idea or even both. Diehards demonstrate deepdevotion to their leaders or like activists will work to remove them. However, unlikeactivists, diehards will go to extremes using any means necessary to remove thoseleaders, if required. These followers are defined by the level of dedication, theirwillingness to sacrifice their all, up to and including their own lives to the idea or cause.Being a diehard, according to Kellerman is all consuming, determining who you are andwhat you do (Kellerman, 2008).Participants Another follower group, Kellerman describes is the participants. The author usedthe backdrop of the legal difficulties faced by the drug manufacturer Merck over the drugVioxx to illustrate this concept. Participants are described by Kellerman as beingengaged, but not to the same extent as an activist or diehard. It is clear that participantseither clearly favor their organization, cause, or leader or they do not. However, they arewilling to make some effort, no matter how small, in order to have an impact, but not to 43
  57. 57. the same level of commitment as an activist or diehard, especially when it comes toundermining or ousting a leader.Bystanders Finally, the last follower group is that of the bystander. Using Nazi Germany andthe atrocities of the Holocaust as a backdrop, Kellerman describes bystanders as thosefollowers who may observe what is occurring within their organizations or society, butmake a deliberate decision to not engage. They participate with their leaders or group inthe activity that constitutes the status quo, but the disengagement of the bystander, ineffect, is giving tacit approval to their activities and behaviors that are occurring(Kellerman, 2008). Negative Follower Attributes: The Dark Side of Followership From Kellerman’s descriptors of the follower group attributes of the bystander,participant, activist, and diehard, one can see that connection of follower-leaderinteraction where the follower may choose to either ignore leader behaviors or activitiesor embrace them in varying degrees of support and loyalty or oppose them in the samevarying degrees. Opposition may be in the form of subtle sabotage of the leader tooutright mutiny where the leader’s life may be in jeopardy in a bid to oust him or her bythe follower group Kellerman, 2008). The literature has provided some research andtheory on toxic leadership or destructive leadership styles and their attendant attributes.However, the literature is largely silent on the negative side of individual followerattributes, where a toxic leader may be upheld and enabled by the followers or effortstaken by the followers to undermine or destroy the leader. The literature cited examplesof petty tyranny, abusive supervision, narcissistic leadership, autocratic leadership, 44

×