Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Analysis-Of-Kelley-S-Typology-Of-Fol 👈

1. NAME: CAROLINE MAGADZA
COURSE CODE: SHRM 408
COURSE TITLE: BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
QUESTION:
Analyze Kelley’s Typology of Followership

2. Page 1 of 6
PASSIVE ACTIVE
INDEPENDENT CRITICAL THINKING
DEPENDANT UNCRITICAL THINKING
The success and failure of groups, teams and organizations not only depends on how well a leader
leads but also on how well a follower can follow because leaders need followers to accomplish
their goals. For most of the 20th
Century, organizational behavior scientists focused on the
leadership/management side of the leader-follower relationship. In the late 20th
Century, scholars
such as Robert Kelley, Chalef and Adiar began to shift attention towards the follower/subordinate
side of the equation (Hoomans 2012). In 1992, Kelley introduced a framework for classifying types
of followers. This essay therefore aims to analyze Kelley’s followership typology. This will be
accomplished by explaining Kelley’s typology and then assessing its strengths and weaknesses.
The term “follower” traces its roots from the German word “follaziohan” meaning “to assist, help,
succor, or minister to” Jordan (2010; 9). Kelley (1992) defines followership as the act or condition
under which an individual helps support a leader in the accomplishment of organizational goals.
Kellerman (2008) defines followership as “the relationship between a subordinate and a superior
as well as the response of the former to the latter”. It is a role held by individuals in an organization,
team or group; it is the capacity of an individual to actively follow a leader (Thatch; 2006).
Kelley (1992) identified five types of followers as shown below:
Table 1: Follower Types
As illustrated, Kelley observed two basic dimensions of followership: critical thinking and
participation. An independent critical thinker engages in active mental debate with things or events
that could have otherwise been processed at face value. In contrast, a dependent uncritical thinker
does not consider possibilities and does not contribute to the cultivation of the organization and
ALIENATED EFFECTIVE
PASSIVE CONFORMIST
PRAGMATIC SURVIVOR

3. Page 2 of 6
accepts the leader’s ideas without thinking. On the dimension of participation, an active follower
anticipates requirements, plans accordingly and fully participates. Conversely, passive individuals
are reactive and tend to place themselves at the mercy of the prevailing current rather than
preparing for changes; such followers need constant supervision Forsyth (2009). In combination
these two dimensions generate five follower patterns: alienated, passive, conformist, effective and
pragmatic survivors.
Alienated followers are independent, critical thinkers who are capable but cynical and have a
negative disposition. Such followers produce little unless supervised and often view themselves as
the rightful leader. They are loners with influence who constantly question the leader’s decisions
and actions. According to Hoomans (2012) alienated followers are effective individuals who have
experienced setbacks and obstacles such as broken promises by superiors. Kelley (1992) explains
that perhaps such individuals were punished by leaders in the past and present for exercising
judgments, taking risks or failing to conform.
Passive followers are also known as “sheep followers”. These are passive, uncritical thinkers who
leave the thinking to their leaders hence they tend to be unproductive unless they are shown what
to do. They do what they have been shown and no more (Yukl; 2006). Such followers often vary
working practices and do not engage well with change unless told to do so. If not managed, they
will do nothing productive hence they often appear to have plenty of time. This followership type
is usually a result of leaders who are controlling and punish mistakes.
Conformists are also known as “yes people”. They are active but dependant, uncritical thinkers.
According to Hoomans (2012) conformists are industrious and work hard doing what they have
been told. They actively follow leaders without question even if following orders is not the right
thing to do in a given situation. In face of opposition, they are likely to defend the leader.
Effective followers are also known as “exemplary” or “star” followers. These are the exact
opposite of passive followers as they are active, independent critical thinkers. According to Latour
and Rast (2003), effective followers are active in work and active in thinking things through hence
they speak out when they are against a certain idea. In addition, they share credit, initiate change,
admit mistakes, exercise superior judgment and put themselves at risk to serve the best interests
of the organization. Kelley (1992) states that this follower possesses several essential qualities:

4. Page 3 of 6
self management, commitment, focus, and courage. Such followers are paramount to the
supporting role a follower plays.
Pragmatic survivors take a middle of the road approach to critical thinking and participation hence
they possess some qualities of the four followership types described above. They are shape
shifting, calculating, flexible self monitors who weigh up what a leader wants and will reflect
whatever they think will increase their chances of survival. Therefore, if a leader is autocratic, they
conform. According to Cahill (2012) this type of follower uses a style that benefits a personal
position and minimizes risk. Such followers emerge when organizations go through difficult times
and do whatever is needed to get them through the difficulty.
An advantage of this model is that it introduces a new perspective of viewing followers.
Traditionally, the leader is seen as the main actor in decision making and the follower- a blank
slate upon which the leader writes the script Hollander (2010). According to Alcorn (1992),
followers have been systematically devalued or considered only as they are available to be known
and manipulated in given subject-object relationship. Kelley (1992) suggests that effective
followers manage themselves well, devote commitment to the organization’s purpose beyond
themselves, build competence and strive to reach higher levels of performance. This way of
looking at followers boosts organizational efficiency because research findings show that the
quality of decisions made and their implementation is improved when participation is present
(Hollander and Offermann; 1990). In light of this, Kelley’s typology raises the awareness that
followers are not mere shadows but active partners in the leadership relationship.
Kelley’s typology of followership is also important in harnessing organizational change. A survey
of Global HR challenges of yesterday, today and tomorrow conducted by the World Federation of
Personnel Management Associations (WFPMA) revealed that managing change was at the top of
the list of Top 10 Human Resource Management challenges. According to Daft (2008) change
fails to be effective without the support of followers, likewise followers and ultimately consumers
fail to benefit when an organization does not change or evolve. Change is facilitated by effective
followers who both challenge and support leaders. Therefore, by developing and encouraging
effective followers as recommended by Kelley, organizations enhance their change management
competencies.

5. Page 4 of 6
According to Forsyth (2009) the model is a useful framework for examining people’s motivations
and work ethic. Kelley’s typology helps open discussion about work ethic, thinking effort, and
depth of thought. Autonomy, creative and critical thinking are critical aspects for the development
and profitability of any organization. These aspects are often lacking in organizations with the
culture, rules and policies that promote control obedience and compliance instead of critical,
creative and autonomous thinking and behavior. In essence, the typology helps organizations
realize the importance of employee involvement and participation.
Another advantage of Kelley’s typology is that it enables leaders to construct differentiated
strategies for followers after categorizing them. Thatch et al (2006) suggest that leaders can adopt
the situational leadership style in accordance with Hersey and Blanchard’s theory. This allows
them to adapt and encourage positive outcomes from different types of followers. Therefore, in
response to alienated followers, leaders may encourage positive contributions by adopting a
“participative” style through involving them in decision making and empowering them. Passive
followers may require leaders to adopt the “selling” style by explaining decisions and clarifying
expectations in order to engage and motivate them. Conformists may require the “telling” style
which involves detailing expectations and monitoring performance to direct followers. Effective
followers demonstrate high levels of responsibility hence they need empowerment; it is
recommended that leaders use the “delegating” style. In view of this, Kelley’s typology may be
used as a framework for understanding followers and adapting accordingly to encourage effective
followership.
Kelley’s typology also highlights the importance of developing successors. As the leader leads,
the follower actively participates in task completion towards goal attainment. Those who prove
able to follow effectively usually transition to formal leadership positions over time (Latour and
Rast 2003). According to Hoomans (2012) good followership both precedes and enhances good
leadership. Therefore Kelley’s model encourages the development of effective followers who in
turn help meet future leadership needs.
The typology also highlights the need for leaders to humble themselves and realize the importance
of followers in accomplishing set goals. According to Bradley cited in Yukl (2006), the greatness
of a leader is measured by the effectiveness of the led; this is the ultimate test of his effectiveness.
Therefore by encouraging followers to participate, leaders enhance their effectiveness.

6. Page 5 of 6
However, Kelley’s typology has weaknesses. The model labels effective followers as those who
can challenge leadership when they are against a certain idea (Latour and Rast; 2003). In practice,
some leaders cannot cope with challenge. Therefore, the model is idealized because it views
leadership as having a “set” of perfect attributes. Autocratic leaders would see star followers as a
threat and troublesome. Conformist followers would be seen by such leaders as being the most
effective. This portrays that the model is subjective since the description of an effective follower
may vary from one leader to the next.
According to Thatch et al (2006), Kelley’s model imposes some artificial rigidity on follower
behavior. The model seems to suggest that the pragmatic survivor is the only type of follower that
is flexible whilst the other follower types are rigid. However, followers may have a dominant class
but still show the traits of other follower types in some situations. For example, alienated followers
may turn out to be passive in some situations. In view of this, the utility of this model is affected
by situational factors because all types of followers can alter their behavior so as to adjust to a
given situation. It is therefore possible to place an individual in the wrong quadrant. This problem
may be solved by observing follower behavior over a lengthy period, across different situations in
order to categorize followers in line with their dominant characteristics.
In conclusion, Kelley’s typology offers a fresh perspective of viewing followers by demonstrating
that followers are not inferior to leaders but they can equally contribute towards mission
accomplishment. Effective followers are active, independent critical thinkers whose contributions
yield desirable results for organizations. However, the model may be considered subjective
because leaders’ perceptions of effective followers vary from one person to another. Essentially,
the model helps disillusion individuals who view followers in an unfavorable light. It therefore
underscores the need for leaders to encourage and facilitate followers to be effective.

7. Page 6 of 6
REFERENCES
Alcorn, D.S. (1992). Dynamic Followership: Empowerment at Work. Management Quarterly,
33, 9-13.
Cahill, R. (2012). Followership: An Often Overlooked Principle. Retrieved 08/02/2014 from:
www.ryancahill.hubpages.com
Daft, R.L. (2008). The Leadership Experience: 4th Edition. Canada: Thomson South-Western.
Forsyth, D.R. (2009). Group Dynamics. New York: Wadsworth.
Hoomans, J. (2012). Historical Reflections on the Value of Followership. Retrieved 01/02/2013
from: www.roberts.edu
Jordan, J.P. (2010). An Investigation of Exemplary Acts of Followership. Retrieved
01/02/2014 from: www.pbworks.com
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: how Followers are Creating Change and Changing
Leaders 1st
Edition. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Kelley, R. (1992). The Power of Followership. New York: Doubleday.
Latour, S.M. and Rast, V.J. (2003). Dynamic Followership: The Prerequisite for Effective
Leadership. Retrieved 01/02/2014 from: www.govleaders.org
Thatch, E.C., Thompson, K.J., & Morris, A. (2006). A Fresh Look at Followership: A Model
for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles. Sonoma State University: Institute of
Behavioral and Applied Management.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in Organizations 6th
Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.