270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx

270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri
Research2
Followers’ Active Engagement:
Between Personal and
Organizational Dimensions
Paola Gatti, Claudio G. Cortese, Manuela Tartari, Chiara
Ghislieri
Department of Psychology, University of Torino
ᴥ ABSTRACT. Il contributo presenta una ricerca sul tema della
followership nelle organizzazioni, proponendosi di
individuare alcuni possibili antecedenti del coinvolgimento
attivo dei follower nella relazione con il leader. La ricerca,
che ha coinvolto 390 soggetti provenienti da diversi contesti
lavorativi, mette in evidenza il ruolo di alcune dimensioni
personali (strategie di coping e apertura all’esperienza) e
organizzative (comportamenti di cittadinanza organizzativa)
nelle dinamiche di followership, e consente di formulare
importanti indicazioni per le politiche di gestione delle risorse
umane e, nello specifico, per la formazione aziendale.
ᴥ SUMMARY. Introduction: An increasing number of scholars
argue that followers are a precondition for “successful”
organizations. Nevertheless, followership has received scant
attention in the literature. Starting from a theoretical
analysis of the issue, this contribution aims to answer some
questions regarding possible antecedents of Followers’
Active Engagement (F.AE), a specific followership behavior

described by Kelley (1988, 1992), described in previous
works, which implies the propensity to take initiative,
participate actively and be self-starters. Methods. A
questionnaire
was administered to 390 respondents from heterogeneous work
settings. The questionnaire includes a personal data
section and eight measures: F.AE; three personal/dispositional
variables (extraversion, intellect, and avoiding coping),
three individual-organization interaction variables
(organizational citizenship behaviors directed at individuals –
OCBI
– and the organization – OCBO –, leader-member exchange),
and a Lie scale as control variable. Data was analyzed
with PASW 18. After analyzing reliability and descriptives, the
relationship between the variables was explored using
correlations and hierarchical multiple regression. Results. F.AE
is related to six variables (25% explained variance). Three
were positively related: in decreasing order, OCBO, intellect,
OCBI, and Lie scale. Conversely, avoiding coping and
gender were negatively related. Gender becomes significant
only in the second step of the regression when dispositional
variables are included. Conclusions. This study adds to the
understanding of followers’ Active Engagement, for example
by measuring some organizational dimensions as its
antecedents, and has practical implications for training and
human
resource management policies. Further studies should clarify
the dynamics that influence followers’ behavior and
the dynamics of the mutual relationship between the leader’s
and followers’ behavior, shedding light on the possible
consequences for the organization, in terms of quality of work
life and productivity.
Keywords: Followership, Active Engagement, Leadership
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 2 31/07/14 14:33

Followers’ Active Engagement: Between Personal and
3
INTRODUCTION
The gap of attention concerning followership has been
said to be one of the four “inalienable truths of leadership”
(Dixon, 2008, p. 159), or “one of the most interesting
omissions in theory and research on leadership” (Avolio,
Walumbwa & Weber, 2009, p. 434). Contrasting with
this lack of attention, and one of the primary reasons for
further investigations, is the pervasiveness of followership
in the workplace: “we are all followers in some way”
(Steger, Manners Jr & Zimmerer, 1982, p. 22) and “even
those with the highest levels of leadership responsibilities,
answer to someone” (Tanoff & Barlow, 2002, p. 157). Not
only does every organization have more followers than
leaders (Collinson, 2006), but many people (especially
those in middle management) find themselves alternating
between the two roles in the course of their work (Kelley,
1988, 1992).
Current changes in the world of organizations call
for leaders who are able not only to face uncertainties
(Montgomery, 2008), and to influence their team’s change
readiness (Caldwell, Chatman, O’Reilly, Ormiston & Lapiz,
2008), but also to develop followers who can provide solid
and positive support in these difficult times.
As Collinson (2006) emphasizes, an increasing number
of scholars argue that followers are a precondition for

successful organizations, a stance confirmed by Agho’s
findings (2009): in his study more than 98% of 302
respondents agree with statements regarding the influence
that effective followers have on the organization and on
the work group. Thus, followers “who recognize a leader’s
flawed thinking and challenge the leader to consider
alternative courses of action […] are highly desirable in
today’s organizational environments” (Carsten, Uhl-Bien,
West, Patera & McGregor, 2010, p. 557). This points to the
importance of proactive followership: a type of followership
which can be better expressed if the organizational context
is suitable (Carsten et al., 2010).
Another, and, in this brief list, final reason for interest
in this issue is that the study of leadership per se might
benefit from a deeper knowledge of followership (Brown
& Thornborrow, 1996), given that followership is a
complement to leadership (Howell & Costley, 2006) and
that “leadership and followership are linked concepts”
(Heller & Van Til, 1982, p. 405). It is precisely because of
this two-fold link between leadership and followership that
the literature on the latter should be re-read in conjunction
with the leadership literature, as Shamir (2007) and
Crossman and Crossman (2011) have done. Crossman
and Crossman (2011), particularly, identified “four broad
overlapping categories within a fluid continuum” (p.
484), which present different conceptions of followers
and followership: 1) individualized or leader-centric
theories; 2) leader-centred theories which rely on follower
perspectives; 3) multiple leadership which encompasses
what is often referred to as shared, distributed or collective
leadership; 4) the followership literature per se (Cortese,
Ghislieri, Gatti & Tartari, 2013).
This study is concerned with one of these categories,

that of the followership literature per se. We’ve chosen
this particular area of study considering that in this
literature followership is intended as a process which
is qualitatively different from leadership. That allows
followership to establish itself as a field of investigation,
extending the interest from top-level leaders (on which the
leader-centric literature had for years focused) to middle
management (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). This line
of study is opened by pioneering investigations by Kelley
(1988, 1992) and Chaleff (1995), the “primary works on
which subsequent discussions of followership were based”
(Baker, 2007, p. 50).
Followers’ Active Engagement
This study chooses to consider a specific aspect of
followership behavior described by Kelley (1988, 1992),
that is followers’ Active Engagement, using the scale
he proposed (1992) to measure this behavior. Kelley is
not the only scholar to emphasize followers’ importance
in organizational dynamics, and recent work has built
fruitfully on his definition of followership (Carsten et al.,
2010; Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007). Nevertheless, Kelley is
acknowledged to have been the first to draw attention to
why people follow (Blackshear, 2003), as well as to the topic
of followership per se (Baker, 2007; Crossman & Crossman,
2011). In addition, his followership scale, although not
devoid of critical aspects (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore
& Bullock, 2009; Tanoff & Barlow, 2002), has been adopted
in a number of investigations published in the last decade
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 3 31/07/14 14:33

Research4
(Blanchard et al., 2009; Mushonga & Torrance, 2008;
Tanoff & Barlow, 2002).
In Kelley’s work, effective followership was
operationalized along two main dimensions. The first
is Independent Critical Thinking, with behaviors like
offering constructive criticism and showing the ability
to think for oneself, with creativity and innovation. This
study concentrates on the second dimension of the model
that is Active Engagement: the typical features include
the propensity to take initiative, participate actively
and be self-starters. For this dimension, the concept of
engagement, which has received renewed attention in the
last years (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), assumes central
importance.
Employees who are engaged in their work are fully
connected with their work roles (Bakker, 2011) and work
engagement may be defined like an active, positive work-
related state that is characterized by vigor, dedication,
and absorption. Bakker (2011) shows that engagement is
different from job satisfaction because it combines pleasure
and activation; is different from the flow because of longer
duration; is wider than the motivation (dedication) because
it associates also a cognitive component (absorption) and
emotional (vigor).
Followers’ Active Engagement is a specific type of
engagement not referable to the work itself but to the
relationship with the leader. Followers’ Active Engagement
refers to a set of behaviors related to the explicit
requirements but also to the non-expressed expectations
of the leader: the follower that is actively engaged in the

relationship with his leader is involved in doing the best in
this relationship (Cortese et al., 2013).
In the most recent developments of his theory, Kelley
(2008) stresses the importance of further studies of the
antecedents, whether individual, social or cultural, that
may influence followership behaviors.
More generally, the literature on the topic shares
this interest and points out that potential antecedents
of followership behaviors could be investigated taking
into account socio-demographic variables such as age,
gender, educational level, ethnicity, and seniority (in the
organization and in the specific work role) (e.g., Baker,
Mathis & Stites-Doe, 2011; Blanchard et al., 2009), personal/
dispositional variables (e.g. Mushonga & Torrance, 2008;
Tanoff & Barlow, 2002), and characteristics of the job and
of person-organization interaction (e.g. Blanchard et al.,
2009; Carsten et al., 2010).
To date, the studies that explored the antecedents
of followership behaviors, and particularly of Active
Engagement, focused on dispositional variables. Tanoff
and Barlow (2002) investigate leadership personality traits
using a research tool which adopts the Five Factor Model
(McCrae & John, 1992). The personality factors showed
a positive association with followers’ Active Engagement,
above all Dynamic (Extraversion) and Conscientious
(Conscientiousness). Mushonga and Torrance (2008)
conducted a similar study, combining the Five Factor
Model with followers’ Active Engagement. They found that
conscientiousness has a significant relation with Active
Engagement.
Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to continue the investigation
of the antecedents of Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE).
In particular, the study analyzes the relationships among
different variables, i.e. personal/dispositional, individual-
organization interaction, and control variables, with F.AE.
In this paragraph we will describe the variables that
are investigated in this study, briefly stating the meaning
and the direction of the expected relationship with the
F.AE.
Among personal/dispositional variables this study
considers: extraversion, intellect and avoiding coping.
The term extraversion (McCrae & John, 1992) identifies
the personality factor otherwise known as “surgency”
(Goldberg, 1990). Wilt and Revelle (2009) pointed out a
number of reasons to investigate it further, concerning
the relationship of extraversion with aspects of social
functioning and well-being in different life domains
(Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). Coherently with the
literature, extraversion can be expected to show positive
relationship with F.AE (Tanoff & Barlow, 2002).
Intellect (Goldberg, 1990) is also labeled as “openness
to experience” (Costa & McCrae, 1985). People who get
high scores on this dimension tend to describe themselves
as educated, informed, interested in new experiences and
contacts with different people and cultures. Basing on the
description of the constructs, we can expect a positive
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 4 31/07/14 14:33

5
relationship between this factor and F.AE (Mushonga &
Torrance, 2008).
As regards coping, generally refers to the ability to
face situations (Frydenberg, 1997) and can be defined as
“the use of cognitive and behavioral strategies to manage
the demands of a situation when these are appraised as
taxing or exceeding one’s resources or to reduce the
negative emotions and conflict caused by stress” (APA,
2007, p. 232). In particular, the dimension of avoiding
coping is described as the reduction by an individual of
the efforts to cope with the stressor, also ceasing to try
to achieve the objectives with which these same sources
of stress interfere (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989).
Avoiding coping should show a negative relationship
with F.AE, especially as regards what pertains to being
strongly involved in one’s work “experiencing a sense
of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge” (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2008: 210).
Among individual-organization interaction variables
this study investigates: organizational citizenship
behaviors (OCBs) and leader-member exchange (LMX).
The first construct, OCBs, relates to behaviors that,
while not critical to the job or to carrying out the tasks,
however, are useful for organizational functioning (Lee &
Allen, 2002). These behaviors can be addressed to different
targets: the literature distinguishes between organizational
citizenship behaviors directed at individuals (OCBI)
and organizational citizenship behaviors directed at
organization (OCBO). As for organizational citizenship,

taken into consideration following Blanchard et al.’s
(2009) suggestion, as a construct that expresses the degree
of involvement in the organization (Van Dyne, Graham
& Dienesch, 1994), we can expect a positive relationship
with F.AE, like that found between commitment and
Active Engagement by Blanchard et al. (2009).
The second construct, LMX, concerns an expression
of mature leadership relationships that foster partnerships
between the leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).
It is expected to show a positive relationship with Active
Engagement, since we may think that the expression of a
mature leadership could correspond to the expression of
an active followership.
Among control variables this study takes into
consideration: gender, length of employment, tenure with
the current supervisor and Lie scale. Organizational tenure
and gender are considered important control variables in
leadership literature (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Baker et
al. (2011) therefore suggest that these variables, together
with race/ethnicity, may also influence followership
behaviors. Moreover, Carsten et al.’s (2010) qualitative
study found that tenure with the current organization and
tenure working with the current supervisor may affect the
social construction of followership.
Finally, following the suggestion of Blanchard et al.
(2009) about the importance of controlling for possible
response bias due to social desirability in Kelley’s
followership scale, the “Lie dimension”, as the tendency
of individuals to present a distorted picture of themselves,
was also investigated by a Lie scale.
Summarizing, our hypotheses are as follows.

Hp.1 Personal/dispositional variables:
1. – 1a. Extraversion is positively related to F.AE
2. – 1b. Intellect is positively related to F.AE
3. – 1c. Avoiding coping is negatively related to F.AE.
Hp. 2 Individual-organization interaction variables:
1. – 2a. Both the dimensions of OCBI and OCBO are
– positively related to F.AE
2. – 2b. LMX is positively related to F.AE.
Hp. 3 Control variables: Lie scale has a weak positive
relation with F.AE.
METHOD
Participants
The convenience sample consisted of 390 respondents
from heterogeneous work settings, all employed in the
services sector with an open-ended and full-time contract.
The sample consisted of 72.1% females and 27.9%
males. Respondents’ average age is around 40 years (SD =
7.58). Average length of employment was approximately 16
years (SD = 10.24), with respondents working an average
of around 37 hours per week (SD = 5.27).
Respondents’ tenure with the current supervisor
averaged slightly over 5 years (SD = 6.10).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 5 31/07/14 14:33

Research6
Procedure
A questionnaire was administered in web-based format
to all the respondents. Before filling in the questionnaire the
respondents received an Information Sheet via email. The
same information was written on the first page of the web-
questionnaire, clarifying that the participation to the survey
was absolutely voluntary and that the survey could be filled
out anonymously to guarantee that individual findings were
strictly confidential.
Measures
The questionnaire includes a socio-demographical
section (gender, length of employment and tenure with
the current supervisor) and seven measures.
Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE): six items
that explicitly mentioned the relationship with the leader
(alpha .92, e.g., “Do you independently think up and
champion new ideas that will contribute significantly to
your departmental chairperson’s or your department’s
goals?”), of the Italian validation (Gatti, Tartari, Cortese
& Ghislieri, 2014) of Kelley’s questionnaire (1992).
These items were presented in a 7-point Likert format
(0 = Rarely and 6 = Almost always). The EFA solution
explained 66.56% of the variance.
Extraversion: ten items (e.g., “Feel comfortable around
people”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very inaccurate
and 5 = Very accurate), taken from Goldberg (1992).
Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .86, and the

EFA solution explained 38.02% of the variance.
Intellect: ten items (e.g., “Spend time reflecting on
things”) on the same 5-point Likert scale described above,
taken from Goldberg (1992). Cronbach’s alpha was .79,
and the EFA solution explained 28.03% of the variance.
Avoiding coping: four items (e.g., “I reduce the amount
of effort I’m putting into solving the problem”), with
response choices scored from 1 = I usually don’t do this
at all to 4 = I usually do this a lot, from the COPE scales
developed by Carver et al. (1989).
Cronbach’s alpha was .80, while the EFA solution
explained 51.09% of the variance.
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: eight items in
7-point Likert format (1 = Never and 7 = Always) from
the scale developed by Lee and Allen (2002). This scale
taps OCBs along two dimensions, distinguishing between
behaviors directed at individuals, or OCBI, and those
directed at the organization, or OCBO. Examples of the
items used for this purpose include, “Go out of the way to
make newer employees feel welcome in the work group”
(OCBI) and “Attend functions that are not required but
that help the organizational image” (OCBO). Cronbach’s
alpha was .84 for OCBI and .80 for OCBO. The two-
factors solution explained 58.01% of the variance.
Leader-Member Exchange: twelve items (e.g., “I like
my supervisor very much as a person”) in a 7-point Likert
format (1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = Strongly agree), from
Liden and Maslyn (1998). Cronbach’s alpha was .94, while
the EFA solution explained 60.41% of the variance.

Lie scale: seven items (e.g., “I’ve always solved every problem
that has occurred”) taken from the Italian adaptation of the
Big Five Questionnaire by Caprara, Barbaranelli and Borgogni
(1993) in a 5-point Likert format (1 = Very inaccurate and 5 =
Very accurate).
Personality questionnaires’ use of Lie scales is one of the
possible strategies for quantifying some of the more significant
types of response bias (Paulhus, 1991). Cronbach’s alpha was
.74, and the EFA solution explained 31.04% of the variance.
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed with PASW 18. After
exploratory factor analysis (EFA, ML method of extraction),
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) and descriptives on each scale,
the
correlations (Pearson’s r) and hierarchical multiple regression
were used to explore the relationship between the variables.
RESULTS
Means, standard deviations, reliability and correlations
are shown in Table 1. F.AE correlates with all other measures
except for LMX. Above all F.AE is positively correlated
to intellect, OCBI and OCBO and negatively related to
avoiding coping. Moreover there is a quite strong positive
correlation between F.AE and the Lie scale (r .27, p<.01):
it could deserve further investigation in order to discover
potential response biases.
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 6 31/07/14 14:33

7
Table 1 - Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and
correlations of all variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. F.AE –
2. Gender (1 = female) –.13* –
3. Length of employment –.15** .10 –
4. Tenure with supervisor –.11* .07 .29** –
5. Extraversion .19** .04 –.13** –.13** –
6. Intellect .28** –.02 –.07 –.06 .32** –
7. Avoiding coping –.30** .16** .15** .05 –.23** –.18** –
8. OCBI .24** .12* –.07 –.10 .21** .19** –.08 –
9. OCBO .29** .06 –.13* –.03 .18** .15** –.12* .48** –
10. LMX .09 .02 –.17** –.10 .09 .07 –.15** .21** .36** –
11. Lie scale .27** –.11 .02 –.08 .25** .41** –.12* .15** .18**
.10 –
M 3.09 – 16.30 5.27 3.20 3.46 1.76 5.48 4.36 4.28 2.94
SD 1.48 – 10.24 6.10 1.06 .96 .80 1.21 1.61 1.83 .98

Alpha .92 – – – .86 .79 .80 .84 .80 .94 .74
Note. * p<.05; ** p<.01.
The results from the hierarchical regression analysis (see
Table 2) show that F.AE is related to six variables (25%
explained
variance). Four were positively related: in decreasing order,
OCBO (β = .17, p<.01), intellect (β = .13, p<.01), OCBI (β =
.13, p<.05), and Lie scale (β = .12, p<.05). Conversely,
avoiding
coping (β = –.24, p<.001), and gender (1 = female, β = –.14,
p<.01) were negatively related. Gender becomes significant
only in the second step of the regression when dispositional
variables are included and the beta coefficient of intellect and
Lie scale decrease in the third step of the regression.
The change in explained variance (ΔR2) for each of the
three steps of the regression is significant (p<.001) similar to
the others. Specifically, we obtained: .10 for control variables,
.09 for personal/dispositional variables and .06 for individual-
organization interaction variables (see Table 2). The lowest
increment of R2 for the organizational dimensions is in part
due to the unexpected non-significant β coefficient of LMX.
DISCUSSION
This study deepens the comprehension of followers’
Active Engagement (Kelley, 1992).
As regards the hypotheses on personal/dispositional
variables, the relationship between extraversion and F.AE
(Hp. 1a) is not confirmed, in contrast to what is found in
literature (Mushonga & Torrance, 2008). Intellect shows a
positive relationship with Active Engagement (Hp. 1b), a
result that is consistent with the previous study of Mushonga

and Torrance (2008).
People who describe themselves as open to
experience may be more inclined to exhibit behaviors
of Active Engagement, assuming the ownership of
the work, taking initiative in problem solving and
decision-making and accepting change in a constructive
way (Kelley, 1992).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 7 31/07/14 14:33
Research8
Table 2 - Hierarchical multiple regression. Dependent variable:
Followers’ Active Engagement (F.AE)
Independent variables
F.AE
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Sex (1 = Female) –.09 –.11* –.14**
Length of employment –.13* –.08 –.06
Tenure with leader –.01 –.01 –.02
Lie scale .26*** .15** .12*
Extraversion – .05 .02
Intellect – .16** .13*

Avoiding coping – –.24*** –.24***
OCBI – – .13*
OCBO – – .17**
LMX – – –.08
R2 .10 .19 .25
ΔR2 .10*** .09*** .06***
Note. N = 390; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
Coherently we observe, on the contrary, a negative
relationship with avoiding coping (Hp. 1c), construct which
detects the tendency to keep oneself away from problematic
situations (Carver et al., 1989). This coping strategy could be
linked, therefore, to more passive followership behaviors with
little propensity for social interactions and low motivation to
engage in new tasks (Kelley, 1992). Hp. 1b and Hp. 1c have
therefore been confirmed.
With respect to the hypotheses concerning individual-
organization interaction variables, the study confirmed
only the first hypothesis, related to the two dimensions of
OCBs (Hp. 2a). Both the behaviors towards colleagues and
the behaviors towards the organization, show a positive
relationship with F.AE. This result provides a partial
response to the call of Blanchard et al. (2009) who identify
organizational citizenship as one of the aspects to be explored.
In a work environment perceived as “responsive to the other”
and as a place where an attitude of openness and exchange
between people is promoted, followers may express higher
levels of Active Engagement. It is possible that the link between

organizational citizenship and followership’s efficacy steps
through the concept of “participation”: an interaction with a
work context that is supportive of colleagues as well as of the
organization and its image (Lee & Allen, 2002), could foster
behaviors toward the leader probably characterized by the
same dynamism and involvement.
The Hp. 2b, on the contrary, was not confirmed: we found
a not significant correlation between F.AE and LMX and the
latter shows a not significant relation also in the regression
analysis.
Lastly, Hp. 3 was confirmed. There is a relationship
between F.AE and the Lie scale, and can also be seen in the
multiple regression, which shows a limited impact of social
desirability on F.AE. This finding suggests that, as expected,
F.AE is influenced by social desirability. Accordingly, in
further and more complex studies on F.AE (as well as of
other variables that require a self-assessment of behaviors/
attitude expected by organizations) it will be important
to control for this dimension and, where possible, to add
hetero-assessment measures.
Moreover, results show a significant relationship with
gender, among the socio-demographic characteristics used
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 8 31/07/14 14:33
9

as control variables. This finding appears to be in line with
the differences between men’s and women’s descriptions of
their follower roles that emerged from Berg’s qualitative study
(1998): it could be that women, as followers, are more prone
and available to interpret their role as supportive of the work of
someone else and less competitive which could result in lower
level of F.AE.
Among the limitations of this study, first of all it is based
on a self-report questionnaire, therefore the collected data may
have been influenced by response bias. Even if we have checked
for lie scale, the study didn’t consider other control variables to
measure response bias. Moreover, the study is based on a cross-
sectional design in which the direction of the relationship can
only be suggested by the researchers themselves. At last, the
study has also been carried out in a convenience sample that is,
moreover, biased with respect to gender.
With regard to possible developments of this study, it
would be useful comparing workers in different professions
or workers belonging to different organizational contexts
to develop new hypotheses on differences in followership
at work. Furthermore, the relation between F.AE and LMX
would benefit from further investigation. The findings of
this study show that the constructs do not overlap, a risk
that we would have considered chiefly by using an LMX
scale such as that by Liden and Maslyn (1998), which
analyses followers’ contribution as an LMX subdimension.
However, no relationship was found, an unexpected result
that deserves further study. The LMX scale, in fact, is a
measure of the quality of the relationship that focuses
on the “exchange” between leaders and followers (Liden
& Maslyn, 1998), as an expression of mature leadership
relationships, which lead to a “partnership” between leader
and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995).

In addition, other individual-organization interaction
variables (e.g., quality of internal communication and
perceived organizational support), which may influence
the expression of a proactive and engaged followership,
could be included.
CONCLUSIONS
Further studies on followership should help to clarify the
dynamics that influence the behavior of the followers as well as
the dynamics of the mutual relationship between the behavior
of the leader and of the follower, but also to understand more
precisely what the possible consequences for the organization
are, in terms of quality of work life and productivity.
These deeper investigations on the issue of followership
could integrate into the body of leadership knowledge (Brown
& Thornborrow, 1996; Densten & Gray, 2001), making it
more complete and balanced and fostering organizational
development and training. This would be particularly
important for those workers who, as middle-managers, are
constantly asked to be both effective leader and follower
(Latour & Rast, 2004).
In this connection, future research should aim at several
targets including: more precisely identifying the distinctive
qualities of followership; focusing skills that followership and
leadership could have “in common”; defining the preconditions
useful for the expression of effective forms of leadership and
followership; helping to change the “culture of followership”,
making the sometimes stereotyped image of followers more
complex and sticking to reality.
To reach these aims it will be important to address the topic
through qualitative studies, whereby an “embedded” knowledge

(Scaratti, 2014) of followership can be constructed.
This will shed light on the meanings and the representations
assigned to followership – as a result of a negotiation process
among organizational actors – in specific organizational
settings,
to gain a better understanding of their relational dynamics.
A better knowledge of followership may also help leaders to
identify areas of mutual influence with followers, thus
promoting
job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational change
(Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009).
Therefore it would thus be important to develop leadership
and followership training programs that support F.AE both in
leaders’ expectations and in followers’ behaviors (Clements &
Washbush, 1999). Moreover, in view of the reciprocal
influences
involved, a well-designed leadership and followership training
will be helpful in identifying the potential “dark side” in leader-
follower relationships, i.e. collusive dynamics, relational traps,
and so forth (Lipman-Blumen, 2007).
It is about planning a training that is able to encourage
people to develop a realistic view of themselves as they are
placed
in a network of relationships with different roles and demands,
by improving the capacity for self-criticism and raising the
possibility that they confront themselves with their mistakes;
to make aware of the importance that followers accurately
assess the feedback they receive from their supervisors and
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 9 31/07/14 14:33

Research10
the feedback they are able to offer in turn to the supervisors
themselves; to promote the reflection among the leaders about
the need to realize an observation and an interpretation of the
behavior of their followers that is, as much as possible, accurate
and free from distortion.
Training interventions adopting a participatory and
reflective perspective, that is, all those methods that put the
relationship in a central position (Ghislieri & Gatti, 2012),
appear
to be consistent with this framework. This is the same feature
that some authors consider so much necessary to be “natural”
in the development of leadership (McCauley & Guthrie, 2007)
and could also become that natural in the development of
followership.
References
AGHO, A.O. (2009). Perspectives of senior-level executives on
effective followership and leadership. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 16, 159-166.
APA (2007). Dictionary of psychology. GR VandenBos (Ed).
California: American Psychological Association.
AVOLIO, B.J., WALUMBWA, F.O. & WEBER, T.J. (2009).
Leadership:

Current theories, research and future directions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 421-449.
BAKER, S.D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation
of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 14 (1), 50-60.
BAKER, S.D., MATHIS, C.J. & STITES-DOE, S. (2011). An
exploratory study investigating leader and follower
characteristics
at U.S. healthcare organizations. Business–Economics, 23 (3),
341-363. Available at: http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/
bus_facpub/8 (accessed 21 January 2014).
BAKKER, A.B. (2011). An Evidence-Based Model of Work
Engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20
(4),
265-269.
BAKKER, A.B. & DEMEROUTI, E. (2008). Towards a model
of work
engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209-223.
BERG, D.N. (1998). Resurrecting the muse: Followership in
organizations. In E.B. Klein, F. Gabelnick & P. Herr (Eds.),

The Psychodynamics of Leadership. Madison, CT: Psychosocial
Press, 27-52.
BLACKSHEAR, P.B. (2003). The followership continuum: a
model
for increasing organizational productivity. The Public Manager,
32 (2), 25-29.
BLANCHARD, A.L., WELBOURNE, J., GILMORE, D. &
BULLOCK,
A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to
organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12 (2), 111-
131.
BROWN, A.D. & THORNBORROW, W.T. (1996). Do
organizations
get the followers they deserve? Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 17 (1), 5-11.
CALDWELL, D., CHATMAN, J., O’REILLY, C., ORMISTON,
M.
& LAPIZ, M. (2008). Implementing strategic change in a heath
care system: The importance of leadership and change
readiness.
Health Care Management Review, 33 (2), 124-133.

CAPRARA, G.V., BARBARANELLI, C. & BORGOGNI, L.
(1993). BFQ:
Big Five Questionnaire. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni
Speciali.
CARSTEN, M.K., UHL-BIEN, M., WEST, B.J., PATERA, J.L.
&
McGREGOR, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of
followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly,
21, 543-562.
CARVER, C.S., SCHEIER, M.F. & WEINTRAUB, J.K. (1989).
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
CHALEFF, I.. (1995). The Corageous Follower: Standing up to
&
for our Leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
CLEMENTS, C. & WASHBUSH, J.B. (1999). The two faces of
leadership: Considering the dark side of leader-follower
dynamics. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11, 170-176.
COLLINSON, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-
structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 179-189.
CORTESE, C.G., GHISLIERI, C., GATTI, P. & TARTARI, M.
(2013).

La followership nelle organizzazioni. Studi organizzativi, 2, 9-
35.
COSTA, P.T. Jr & McCRAE, R.R. (1985). The NEO Personality
Inventory
Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
CROSSMAN, B. & CROSSMAN, J. (2011). Conceptualising
followership—a review of the literature. Leadership, 7, 481-
497.
DENSTEN, I.L. & GRAY, J.H. (2001). The links between
followership and the Experiential Learning Model:
Followership coming of age. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 8 (1), 69-76.
DIXON, G. (2008). Getting together. In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff
& J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
EAGLY, A.H. & JOHNSON, B.T. (1990). Gender and
leadership style:
A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108 (2), 233-256.
FRYDENBERG, E. (1997). Adolescent Coping: Theoretical and
Research Perspectives. Firenze: Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni

Speciali (tr. it. 2000).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 10 31/07/14 14:33
11
GATTI, P., TARTARI, M., CORTESE C.G. & GHISLIERI, C.
(2014).
A Contribution to the Italian Validation of Kelley’s
Followership
Questionnaire. TPM, 21 (1), 67-87.
GHISLIERI, C. & GATTI, P. (2012). Generativity and balance
in
leadership. Leadership, 8, 257-275.
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1990). An alternative “description of
personality”:
The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
GOLDBERG, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the
Big-
Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 26-42.

GRAEN, G.B. & UHL-BIEN, M. (1995). Development of
leader-
member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The
Leadership
Quarterly, 6, 219-247.
HELLER, T. & VAN TILL, J.V. (1982). Leadership and
followership:
Some summary propositions. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 18 (3), 405-414.
HOWELL, J.P. & COSTLEY, D.L. (2006). Understanding
Behaviors for
Effective Leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HURWITZ, M. & HURWITZ, S. (2009). The romance of the
follower:
Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41 (2), 80-86.
KELLEY, R.E. (1988). In Praise of Followers. Harvard
Business
Review, 66 (6), 142-148.
KELLEY, R.E. (1992). The Power of Followership. New York:
Dubleday.
Roma: Franco Angeli Editore (tr. it. 1994).
KELLEY, R.E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R.E. Riggio,

I.
Chaleff & J. Lipman–Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
LATOUR, S.M. & RAST, V.J. (2004). Dynamic followership:
The prerequisite
of effective leadership. Air and Space Power Journal, 18 (4),
102-110.
LEE, K. & ALLEN, N.J. (2002). Organizational citizenship
behavior
and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (1), 131-142.
LIDEN, R.C. & MASLYN, J.M. (1998). Multidimensionality of
leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management, 24 (1), 43-72.
LIPMAN-BLUMEN, J. (2007). Toxic leaders and the
fundamental
vulnerability of being alive. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M.C. Bligh
&
M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on
leadership.
A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age Publishing.

McCAULEY, C.D. & GUTHRIE, V.A. (2007). Designing
relationships
for learning into leader development programs. In B.R. Ragins
&
K.M. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work. Theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCRAE, R.R. & JOHN, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the
five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175.215.
Available at:
http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/courses/psyc5112/
readings/psnbig5_mccrae03.pdf (accessed 2 January 2014).
MONTGOMERY, C.A. (2008). Putting leadership back into
strategy.
Harvard Business Review, 86 (1), 54-60.
MUSHONGA, S. & TORRANCE, C. (2008). Assessing the
relationship between followership and the big five factor model
of personality. Review of Business Research, 8 (2), 185-193.
OZER, D.J. & BENET-MARTINEZ, V. (2006). Personality and
the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of

Psychology, 57, 401-421.
PAULHUS, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response
bias.
In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.),
Measures
of Personality and Social Psychological Attitude. San Diego,
CA:
Academic Press Elsevier.
SCARATTI, G. (2014). The Rear Window: A Project for a
Screenplay on
the elcoming of Roma Families. Qualitative Inquiry, 20 (2),
193-202.
SHAMIR, B. (2007). From passive recipients as active co-
producers:
Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R.
Pillai, M.C. Bligh & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered
Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of
James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
STEGER, J.A., MANNERS, G.E. Jr & ZIMMERER, T.W.
(1982).
Following the leader: How to link management style to
subordinate personalities. Management Review, 71, 22-28, 49-
51.

STINSON, J.E. & ROBERTSON, J.H. (1973). Follower-
maturity and
preference for leader-behavior style. Psychological Reports, 32,
247-250.
TANOFF, G.F. & BARLOW, C. (2002). Leadership and
followership:
Same animal, different spots? Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 54 (3), 157-167.
UHL-BIEN, M. & PILLAI, R. (2007). The romance of
leadership
and the social construction of followership. In B. Shamir, R.
Pillai, M.C. Bligh & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered
perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of
James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
VAN DYNE, L., GRAHAM, J.W. & DIENESCH, R.M. (1994).
Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,
37, 765-802.
WILT, J. & REVELLE, W. (2009). Extraversion. In M. Leary &
R. Hoyle
(Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behaviour.
New York, NY: Guilford Press. Available at: http://personality-

project.org/revelle/publications/wr.ext.08.pdf (accessed 21
January 2014).
BPA_Layout_140703_(270).indd 11 31/07/14 14:33
Copyright of Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata is the property
of Giunti O.S. Organizzazioni
Speciali and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
The Leadership-followership Dynamic: Making the
Choice to Follow
Raymond W. Cox Ⅲ, The University of Akron, Ohio, USA
Gregory K. Plagens, The University of Akron, Ohio, USA
Keba Sylla, The University of Akron, Ohio, USA
Abstract: Leadership studies generally focus on the role and
importance of the positional or formal
leader. The paradigmatic leader is the great military or political
figure—the historian’s “great man.”
There is no coherent foundational perspective on followership
that is not the resultant of leadership.
This work offers a framework for a follower-centric view of
leadership that reveals the importance of
followership. Leaders and followers exhibit different attributes
depending upon the organizational

setting. To acting of following requires the organizational
attribute of a willingness to be lead, but
also the interpersonal attribute of the capability to respond
(knowledge, experience). Understanding
each other’s role and values is essential in this transformation
of the traditional view in organizations.
To lead requires the organizational attributes of decisiveness,
problem recognition and the capacity
to prioritize, but also the interpersonal attribute of the
willingness to conduct a talent search (finding
someone to follow). Followership is not merely the actions of a
subordinate who accepts and obeys
the dictates of the organizational authority figures. Therefore,
followership is not the same as following.
Following is impelled (consciously or unconsciously
influenced) by actions of leaders. Following is
reactive. In contrast followership is an a priori choice (self-
conscious) of the individual in the context
of his or her relationship to the nominal leader. Issues of
authority and rank play little or no role in
such a choice. Followership is interactive. Followers are in
control the situation by the choices made.
Therefore, organizational success is in the hands of followers.
Keywords: Leadership, Inter-personal Relations, Management,
Decision-making, Problem-solving
Introduction
THE IDEA AND ideal of leadership has long been a topic of
study for historians,sociologists, political scientists, social
psychologists, and those in business adminis-tration.
Intermittently it has been a topic in public administration. The
study of
leadership in the public sector has changed considerably over
the years, in part based

upon which disciplinary perspectives those in public
administration chose to borrow. For
much of the last one hundred years and with the notable
exception of Weber’s (1946) studies
on the bases for “authority,” leadership studies have inevitably
focused on the role and im-
portance of the positional or formal leader. The simple
assumption affirmed by the surveys
and studies is that the leader is synonymous with institutional
authority. The paradigmatic
leader is the great military or political figure—the historian’s
“great man.” As Plagens (2009)
notes:
Formal leaders are not the only individuals in an organization
that can shape outcomes,
however. In the leadership literature attention is given to the
idea of leadership from
The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences
Volume 5, Number 8, 2010, http://www.SocialSciences-
Journal.com, ISSN 1833-1882
© Common Ground, Raymond W. Cox Ⅲ, Gregory K. Plagens,
Keba Sylla, All Rights Reserved,
Permissions: [email protected]
within or from below, suggesting that anyone, regardless of
formal title or rank, can
contribute as a leader (Covey 1989, 2004; Kouzes and Posner
2007). The importance
of informal leaders cannot be denied, but they are not as easily
identified and their
formal controls in organizations are often limited or nonexistent

(p. 85).
Regardless of the orientation to leadership in the literature, one
constant seems to be the
importance of the leader in organizational decision-making and
organizational effectiveness.
Whether it is a book on the philosophy of Sun Tzu (Michaelson,
2003), biographies of
Douglas MacArthur (Manchester, 1978; Haugen, 2006), a
treatise on ethics and leadership
(Ciulla, 2004), or a straight-forward exploration of leadership
(Selznick, 1957), each begins
from the seemingly unassailable assumption that good
(positional) leadership makes organ-
izations better.
One compendium on leadership suggests that there are “almost
as many different
definitions of leadership as there are persons who have
attempted to define the concept”
(Bass 1990:11). Still, Bass goes on to classify the many
definitions of leadership into
eleven categories. Among the classifications are…. leadership
as a means of focusing
on group change, activity, and process; leadership as the
activity of influencing change
in the conduct of people; and leadership as an instrument of
goal achievement. By these
definitions, leadership is about relationships and about action…
(Plagens, 2009, p. 84).
The leadership-followership dynamic was not fully studied in
the literature of leadership in
organizations for decades. Most of the discussions have focused
on the domination of leader
over the follower or subordinate in organizational settings.

Baker (2007) points out that
followership or follower has been used in management and
organizational literature since
the 1950s. It is only in the last three decades, as leadership
theories began to emphasize
transformational leadership in contrast to transactional
leadership, that a fuller understanding
of the relationship between those we call “leaders” and those we
call “followers” was explored
(Bryman, 1996; Burns, 1978). While a few studies of followers
have been offered in the last
few years, we do not yet have a coherent foundational
perspective on followership that is
not merely the resultant of leadership. The goal of this work is
to begin to fill that void in
the literature by offering a follower-centric view of leadership
theory.
The first task is to provide two quick definitions. For the time
being traditional viewpoints
will be presented. As this work progresses, more complex
definitions will emerge. Leadership
is the capacity to exercise influence over the actions of others
such that the others behave
in the manner the leader desires. Leading is the self-conscious
actions of an individual vested
with the capacity and/or responsibility to exercise leadership.
Traditionally, followership
(sometimes called “followship”) represents the conscious and
unconscious behaviors of
persons and groups in support of the goals and desires of a
leader which have been expressed
in words or conduct.
Three bodies of literature from public administration, business
administration and the

social sciences have contributed to our current understandings
of leadership and followership.
In part because of the interest of academics in public and
business administration, the exercise
and practice of leadership has typically been presented in the
context of organizational
structures and processes. To understand where we stand with
regard to the theory and practice
of leadership and followership, we must explore, first, the
historical evolution of leadership
38
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY
SOCIAL SCIENCES
theory. As will be apparent from that history, our understanding
of leadership changes, yet
never fully rejects earlier perspectives. Thus, even as that
evolution suggests a shift from an
organizational to a more inter—personal and individual
understanding of leaders and follow-
ers, leadership theory essentially follows two somewhat distinct
pathways—one that continues
to see leadership as an intentional contributor to positive
organizational outcomes, and a
second that sees leadership as isolated interactions between
individuals that may or may not
connect within the context of an organization. Through the
examination of, first, a historic
review of leadership theory and then a summary of the
organizational and interpersonal ap-
proaches to the leader-follower dynamic, we lay the groundwork
for the final element of the

paper—a follower-centric theory of leadership.
The Evolution of Leadership Theory
The interplay of theory and practice of leadership has followed
a somewhat dialectic path.
Even as each theory is presented, there seems to emerge a
counter-argument or opposing
perspective expressed by those in the academy. This synthesis-
antithesis byplay is the basis
for the presentation of the literature on leadership. Thus each of
the sections that follow will
offer, first, a central theme and then a commentary on the critics
of that theme. Secondly,
the emphasis shifts from a primarily organizational perspective
to an individual and/or inter-
personal perspective. This shift to a more interpersonal basis
was necessary for a consideration
of followership. But it should be noted that current leadership
theories exist on the parallel
planes of the organization and the individual.
Leadership as Command
Traditionally, leadership or a leader in an organization is
viewed as a person who has the
capacity and the power to lead followers or subordinates. Well
into the twentieth century
leadership was seen as the result of the singular will of the
leader: Julius Caesar (I came, I
saw, I conquered) or Douglas MacArthur. The central
understanding of leadership was based
on the notion that the leaders actively lead and the followers or
subordinates, passively and
obediently, follow. The basic premise of this style of leadership
is that leaders give orders
(commands) to homogeneous followers. Leadership can be
characterized as the exercise of

power.
This conception of leadership was developed in the early
twentieth century. The “Scientific
Management” theory introduced by Frederick Taylor (1911), the
charismatic and authorit-
arian leader evoked by Max Weber (1946), and the command
approach in administrative or
bureaucratic organizations, and in government (Gulick, 1937)
all generate a kind of control
and power from the top down, and the subordinates in these
organizations were practically
under the submission of the leader.
Counterpoint: Cooperative Leadership
From the beginning there were those who doubted and
challenged this approach. Exemplars
of these critiques of the accepted views on leadership were
Follett (1937; 1996) and Barnard
(1968). The vision of the leaders expressed here is that of a
conciliator and facilitator. A half
39
RAYMOND W. COX Ⅲ, GREGORY K. PLAGENS, KEBA
SYLLA
century later these writers would provide the basic frame of
reference for advocates of a
more “follower-centric” approach to leadership.
Follett’s view on the giving of orders presages future works of
much later scholarship. It
is in her work on orders that the emphasis on individualism and

the dignity of the work come
through most clearly. Follett firmly believed that orders, like
control, involved a reciprocal,
integrative activity. Compliance with orders was not simply the
product of the authority of
the issuer of the orders (Follett, 1996).
Barnard’s The Functions of the Executive (1968) has influenced
generations of organization
theorists. His emphasis on cooperation, leadership, and the
informal group represents a major
departure from the structural and authoritarian assumptions
characteristic of classical organ-
ization theory.
Leadership of Groups
During the middle and later decades of the twentieth century
(and into this first part of the
twenty-first century) concern for the worker both as an
individual and as part of a group
becomes paramount. This is a time when the human element in
organizations becomes
defined as the most important factor in an organization’s
success. Concerns as varied as in-
dividual motivation to managerial capability to lead are facets
of human relations in the or-
ganization. The basic premise of this “group-based” style of
leadership is that leaders must
work with followers who are heterogeneous and respond to
quite different internal and ex-
ternal “stimuli”.
A dissatisfied or unmotivated worker will make little use of a
well-structured facility, and
a motivated employee will be able to do better under adverse
physical conditions.

The Hawthorne experiments were the emotional and intellectual
wellspring of the or-
ganizational behavior perspective and modern theories of
motivation. The Hawthorne
experiments showed that complex, interactional variables make
the difference in motiv-
ating people—things like attention paid to workers as
individuals, workers’ control
over their own work, differences between individuals’ needs,
management willingness
to listen, group norms, and direct feedback (Roethlisberger,
1989, pp. 28–29).
Counterpoint: The Psychology of Leadership
Criticism of the group dynamics perspective came from both
those who were unwilling to
relinquish the traditional views of leadership and from those
(primarily psychologists) who
found the focus on group dynamics did not leave sufficient
room to explore individual rela-
tionships.
Maslow first presented his views on human motivation in
1943.In that work he presented
his now famous hierarchy of needs. Those needs are:
physiological, safety, love, esteem,
and self-actualization. First, it is important to understand the
interrelationships among these
needs. Second, satisfaction need not be complete before the
needs of a higher level are ad-
dressed. Third, and probably most important, is that these needs
are generally unconscious.
While higher-level needs can be brought out in each of us and
therefore become conscious,
this is not often the case. Fourth is that all behavior is

motivated; some behavior is an expres-
sion of personality and experience rather than needs.
40
SOCIAL SCIENCES
All this suggests that goals are the central principle within the
concept of motivation.
Gratification through the attainment of goals is the basic
process for determining a shift to
other needs (and therefore goals). The point is that the work
setting must be taken into account
if the manager is to create a work environment where
achievement of higher needs is possible
(Fiedler, 1967). For Fiedler, the differences are likely to be
found in the flexibility and ad-
aptability of management style of the respective manager.
Another psychological approach comes in the exploration of the
role of “power” and/or
authority in defining the relationship between leaders and
followers. The more commonly
applied approach is that of French and Raven (1959), who
explored the role of “power” in
structuring and defining relationships in an organizational
setting. French and Raven offer
five different forms or types of power:
• Reward
• Coercive
• Legitimate
• Referent

• Expert
The idea of power and influence in organizations represents a
logical starting point for a
broader study of leadership in organizations. This perspective
differs from that which we
have just described, in that it is more socio-psychological rather
than psychological.
Organizational Leadership
By the 1960s it was apparent that organizational leadership was
more than merely giving
orders. While some of the very earliest theorists would affirm
this assertion, the new gener-
ation of theorists would push the boundaries of our
understanding of leadership by focusing
on the dynamic of the relationship as an element of
organizational behavior. Much of the
work would focus on management and management styles.
While in one sense the study of
management is a diversion from the study of leadership, it
strengthens the sense of the inter-
connectedness of “leaders’ (managers) and “followers”
(subordinates). The work of Herzberg
and Maslow both serve as foundation elements of these new
studies. But two more new
perspectives are exemplars of the leadership literature. From
decidedly different perspectives
(and even different generations) Douglas MacGregor and Max
Weber offer critiques of or-
ganizational leadership.
McGregor (1960) suggested that the quality of performance in
most organizations is at
least partially the product of the manager’s beliefs in, and
expectations of, the abilities of

employees. He contrasts two management styles: one he
designates as Theory X and the
other as Theory Y. McGregor postulates that these management
styles are the result of a
manager’s beliefs about basic human nature. In contrast, the
manager who has a more positive
view of human nature will adapt a management style to
maximize those positive attributes.
The Theory X manager, who has little faith in human nature, is
driven to develop a manage-
ment style that emphasizes control and accountability. The
worker cannot be trusted; he
must be watched and bullied and bribed into doing any work.
The Theory Y manager defines
the task of management as being that of unleashing human
potential so that the worker can
get the job done. Like much other research, the point is not
whether introducing Theory Y
41
SYLLA
management would solve most problems of motivation and
performance. Human nature
bears directly on trust and the extent to which certain
organizational methods can be used
to control employee behavior.
Weber’s (1946) early work on the bases of authority becomes
available in translation for
US researchers in the 1940s. This critical work suggests three
forms of organizational author-

ity: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. This is not the
place to explore the full effect
of these classifications. One critical point is that authority is
not the same as leadership.
Based upon this and other works by Weber, for the first time the
simplistic notion that
leaders are the boss is challenged. This distinction will be
critical for a future generation of
researchers.
Counterpoint: The New Public Management (NPM)
The New Public Management movement reasserts a
predominately organizational and au-
thority-centric perspective on leadership. This third iteration of
the economics/marketing-
based model of management (following public choice theory
and the reinvention movement)
borrows perspectives from each of its predecessor approaches.
The NPM is more strongly
analytic and applies techniques in which the appropriate “real
world” behavior is based upon
statistical and mathematical modeling that begin with
assumptions (all people are egotistical
and self-interested) and outlooks (altruism leads to bad
outcomes) that are derived from
economics. The NPM is not a cohesive and unambiguous set of
ideas; there have been some
internal variations among the proponents of this approach and
among their ideas. The shared
values and perspectives inthe NPM are as follows:
• Analytic techniques
• Policy making and decision making
• Contracting out
• Limiting the scope and reach of government
• Renewed emphasis on the public choice goals of economy and

efficiency
• Entrepreneurship (Cox, Buck and Morgan, 2011, p. 16).
The use of the words “new public” makes it easy to confuse
New Public Administration and
New Public Management, but the two bodies of thought are
quite different. They emerged
under different conditions, NPA during a time of social change
and NPM in a time of focus
on economics and profiting from the private market. Though
there are similarities, NPA and
NPM represent opposites on the continuum of values in public
administration. NPA had a
“macro” orientation, with concern about conditions in the
broader society, especially sub-
stantive equality and social justice. NPM has a “micro”
orientation, concentrating on deliv-
ering services at the lowest per unit cost. In concept, citizens in
NPM are separate from
government in the same way customers are separate from a
business firm. They are people
who consume services, rather than people who gather to decide
what should be done. The
expectation of public-service practitioners in NPM is that they
carry out policy decisions
from elected officials and citizen survey opinion to fine-tune
the techniques used in delivering
services.
As with public choice theory and “reinventing government”
perspectives before it, the
NPM shares a suspicion about the capacity and capability of
government organizations and
42

SOCIAL SCIENCES
a faith in “market-driven” perspectives as the path to
organizational effectiveness. These
perspectives also share the use of a set of techniques and
practices (program evaluation,
cost-benefit analysis, etc.) that begin from an economic
perspective (both academic and
practical). In this sense they represent an extension of the
generic management movement
and the emergence of the science of social existence. These
perspectives also yield the same
result. Public decisions are to be left to the expert. Decisions
cannot be left to amateurs. The
criterion for “right decisions” is in who decides, not in the
quality of the process (Cox, Buck
and Morgan, 2011, p. 17). In many ways the NPM offers a
vision of leadership that is quite
like that of scientific management. The worker, the subordinate,
and the citizen/customer
are simply situational factors to be considered in decision-
making.
The Leadership-followership Dynamic
Infrequently, we get a glimpse of approaches to leadership that
are not based upon hierarch-
ical assumptions —Follett (1926) and Barnard (1968) being the
earliest best examples. Fol-
lowing that lead, Gulick would assert that the motivation of
workers and their affinity for
the goals of the organization are critical. In a statement that
broke with the scientific man-
agement tradition, Gulick commented:

Human beings are compounded of cogitation and emotion and
do not function well
when treated as though they were merely cogs in motion. Their
capacity for great and
productive labor, creative co-operative work, and loyal self-
sacrifice knows no limits
provided the whole man, body-mind-and-spirit, is thrown into
the program. . . .
It becomes increasingly clear, therefore, that the task of the
administrator must be ac-
complished less and less by coercion and discipline and more
and more by persuasion.
In other words, management of the future must look more to
leadership and less to au-
thority as the primary means of co-ordination. (1937, p. 37, p.
39)
Four decades later Burns (1978) introduced transformational
leadership as a reminder that
“cogitation and emotion,” when directed toward a shared
mission, can transform an organiz-
ational culture.
One of the earliest theorists who referred to followership was
Hollander (1955, 1992,
1997, 2004), who argued that leaders and followers are
interdependent and must work to-
gether in order to improve the organization’s performance.
Julian and Hollander (1969, cited
in Baker, 2007), concluded that leadership encompassed a “two
way influence relationship”
(p.390) that contained an “implicit exchange relationship”
(p.395) between the leaders and
the followers over time.

The leader cannot see himself or herself as someone who is
holding an office with high
authority or someone who is always up to giving orders and or
making all the decisions in
the organization. Leadership means understanding how to
promote excellence and protect
values in the workplace (Locke, 2001, but also Arendt, 2003).
This collaboration requires
changes in the assumptions about leadership and its definition.
Leadership emerges through
a stance of flexibility and adaptability, trust from the followers,
and accommodation to inev-
itable changes. This creates a partnership instead of a
hierarchical relationship (Baker, 2007).
Transformational leadership, in contrast with the traditional
views of leadership, generates
more collaboration between leader and follower, and this
collaboration is, in general, based
43
SYLLA
on trust of the leader or leadership in the organization. Jung and
Avolio (2000) link increased
performance in an organization with trust in the leader. They
assert that the followers’
commitment to the leader’s vision depends on the leader’s
capability to build trust with fol-
lowers. High trust among followers is what enables a
transformational leader and his or her
followers to persist in their efforts and to overcome obstacles.

Leading by showing concern
for their needs, honoring agreements, demonstrating the
capability and persistence to achieve
the vision, and possibly through their own willingness to
sacrifice for the good of their group
forms the basis for the bond between the leader and the follower
(Jung and Avolio, 2000,
pp.952).
Another aspect in the value congruence between
follower/leadership relations in organiz-
ational settings concerns power. Burns (1978) and Carnevale
(1995) are particularly emphatic
in their assertions that leadership is not power. Burns argues
that power is applied to meet
the goals of the power wielder, whether or not these are the
goals of the respondents (recip-
ients). Leadership over human beings is exercised when persons
with certain motives and
purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others,
institutional, political, psycholo-
gical, and other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy
the motives of followers (Burns,
1978).
While not wholly endorsing the Burns and Carnevale
perspectives, Raven (2008) extends
his decades old analysis of power through an examination of
what he defines as the three
different types of strategies available for a leader in his/her
interaction with peers and subor-
dinates in an organization.
• Power that leads to socially independent change
(informational power)
• Power that results in socially dependent change with

surveillance necessary (reward and
coercive power)
• Power that leads to socially dependent change with
surveillance unnecessary (legitimate,
expert and referent power) (2008, pp. 2-3).
These strategies are based on motivations which can be used by
a leader to achieve the goals.
It also helps us to detect or to determine the behavior of the
leader. The first type of power
is added by Raven to denote the response to the acquisition of
data and knowledge—inform-
ational power. This is described by Raven as socially
independent, because the willingness
to respond is based upon the material fact of the knowledge
presented, not the provider of
the information.1 The second type of power relationship is
characteristic of transactional
leadership, rather than transformational leadership. The third
power relationship can be an
element of either transactional or transformational leadership.
While the first of these three
understandings of power-legitimate power is associated with
hierarchy and rule-based organ-
izations — it is personal in the sense that the choice to join the
organization may be dependent
upon a perception of the legitimacy of the organization (and,
therefore the organizational
leadership). The last form of power – expert power – is the
individually constructed assess-
ment of the expertise of persons that drive informal networks.
People seek out “experts” in
the hope/expectation of getting answers to questions. The search
for expertise (or talent) is

the key to the emergence of informal networks and
organizations inside the formal structure.
1 If the provider is relevant then we are in the realm of socially
dependent change without surveillance. For example
an individual may judge a media outlet as biased. In that case
the decision to accept the information is tempered
by the perceived bias.
44
SOCIAL SCIENCES
It is the quality of these interpersonal interactions that yields
circumstances in which both
the follower and the leader are looking for talent to follow and
to lead. This interpersonal
dynamic becomes a driving force to introduce changes in the
relations between both the
follower and the leader but also in the organization.
Redefining Leadership in Terms of Followership
Karl Weick (1979) famously said “How do I know what I said,
until I see what I said?” This
odd little question summed up the then emerging theory on
communications. Weick described
his model of communication as the “double interact.” The
interaction is simply a feedback
loop, but in a different medium. Thus one person speaks to
another and both observe and
hear the response. Based upon the twin response, the initiator of
the conversation determines
if he/she was understood, triggering either new communication

or a modification of the initial
communication (in an attempt to be understood). The
“communication” is incomplete until
that understanding has been achieved. The burden of and
responsibility for achieving under-
standing is on the initiator of the conversation. If we use the
double interact framework to
understand the leadership-followership dynamic, a quite
different perspective on leaders and
followers emerges.
Leading by Following
If, as has been asserted, organizations are networks of formal
and informal relationships,
then network and communications theories go a long way
toward explaining the dynamic
of informal organizations. As suggested earlier the foundational
perspective of such networks
is trust. If organizations are to be successful, both the formal
and the informal aspects of the
organization must be predicated on the following
understandings of trust:
• Trust should affirm the organizational-interpersonal link;
• Trust should promote cultural values such as respect, vision,
diversity, and empowerment;
• Trust should be built through the application of the skills of:
talent searching, communic-
ating, deciding, self-assessing, enabling, culture creating, and
culture affirming.
In summary, leaders and followers both must have the ability to
interchange their role.
Meaning that the leader must be decisive and desirous of
becoming the follower, and the

follower must be capable as well as desirous of leading. In
addition, leadership is not only
a behavioral attitude but it also includes ethics and intention.
An ethical leader is someone
who harmonizes beliefs and behaviors in his or her relations
with followers. By doing so,
the leader enhances fairness, innovates and creates a good
environment for all and, therefore,
the leader is doing what is “right” for the organization (Burns,
1978; Carnevale, 1995, Ciulla,
2004). This follower/leader dynamic reveals the importance of
the followers and the accept-
ance of the leader to not use power or authority over the
followers. This dynamic further
leads to understanding the effects of this duality at the
organizational and interpersonal levels.
45
SYLLA
Leadership as Talent Search
One of the basic responsibilities of organizational leaders is to
resolve organizational prob-
lems. By reframing Weick’s notion of the double interact, a
different way of understanding
the relationship between the “leader” and the “follower” can be
offered. The “problem” in
problem solving is finding the person with the capacity and
capability to address the problem.
Stated another way, problem solving is about searching for
talented people to answer ques-
tions. This talent search also highlights the desire for the leader

to understand when to become
a follower. Therefore, knowing one’s limits in a group or
organization is a good thing in the
relationship. The process works as follows:
Having determined that a problem exists, a member of the
organization seeks those
who might have knowledge and understanding of the problem.
In seeking help the
leader is looking for a talented individual from whom to get
answers to all or, more
likely, parts of the answers to the questions. This is a process
that works through informal
channels. The first point, having identified the person who
potentially has answers, is
not the same as having an answer. The “talent” must choose to
answer the questions.
In hearing the answers, the initiator must then decide whether
more questions remain
(i.e. he/she does not yet sufficiently understand to act).
Therefore, the search for talent
must continue. It is in this way that both parties to the
discussion exercise leadership;
the person takes responsibility for resolving the problem by
gaining understanding. The
talented person chooses to help create understanding (an act of
leadership). Then the
originator of the process decides when he/she has sufficient
understanding to act (also
the exercise of leadership). In other words the leader chooses to
become a follower,
allowing the follower to lead which in turn permits the leader to
again lead.
Toward A General Theory of Leadership (Part I)
In 1978 James MacGregor Burns offered a glimpse at a “general

theory of leadership” (pp.
422-443). It is his summary of the evolution of leadership
theory after some 60 years of
academic discourse. His general theory begins from an
assumption that there are two types
of leadership (Transactional and Transformational). The
distinction between the two types
of leadership is in the values that form the basis of the act of
leading:
• Transactional leadership to address modal values (values of
means… honesty, fairness,
responsibility)
• Transformational leadership to address end-values (raise
followers to seek principles
such as liberty, justice, equality)
Burns then adds three elements to complete his general theory.
First and most critically,
leadership is “common” in the sense that all in an organization
are capable of leading.
Secondly, organizational structures matter. Authority and power
are important to the work
of an organization, though it may not explain organizational
success. The organizational
structure is both a means by which to reach, or to be closed off
from, followers. Third,
“political” leadership is a useful model for understanding
leadership, because at its best it
is both loosely institutional and closely interpersonal. Lastly,
leadership is an activity; it is
goal oriented (strategic perspective, decisiveness and problem
solving). From the distance
46

SOCIAL SCIENCES
of another thirty years, more elements can be added to our
understanding of this dynamic.
First is that leadership, while most apparent in formal
organizational settings, is sustained
through interpersonal relations. As a corollary, both leaders and
followers exhibit different
attributes depending upon the role/perspective required in a
given setting. For example, to
be a follower requires one to exhibit the organizational attribute
of a willingness to be lead,
but the interpersonal attribute of the capability to respond
(knowledge, experience). Similarly,
to be a leader requires the organizational attributes of
decisiveness, problem recognition and
the capacity to prioritize, but the interpersonal attribute of the
willingness to conduct a talent
search (finding someone to follow).
Conclusion
The challenge given at the outset can be restated as creating a
theory of leadership which
complies with the definition offered by Burns… “the function of
leadership is to engage
followers, not merely activate them, to commingle needs and
aspirations and goals in a
common enterprise, and in the process to make better citizens of
both leaders and followers
(Burns, 1978, p. 460).”
This definition affirms the importance and the centrality of

leadership/followership in any
modern organization. The follower is no longer a mere
subordinate who accepts and obeys
the dictates of the leader. The leader or leadership also is
transformed due to the complexity
and the necessity of collaboration. Understanding each other’s
role and values is essential
in this transformation of the traditional view in organizations.
This complicity in the workplace
is the new face of any dynamic organizational setting, private or
public. Their collaboration
creates a consensual basis for less conflict, and it generates
empowerment for the organization
and for its personnel. It has also been observed that the
leadership/followership dynamic
leads to ethical progress in the organization.
Leadership is a distinct kind of moral relationship between
people. Power is a defining
aspect of this relationship. Whenever there is a change in the
distribution of power
between leaders and followers, there is a change in the specific
rights, responsibilities,
and duties in the relationship. Both sides have to be honest
when they make these
changes and have to understand fully what they mean. Bogus
empowerment attempts
to give employees or followers power without changing the
moral relationship between
leaders and followers. Empowerment changes the rights,
responsibilities, and duties of
leaders as well as followers. It is not something one does to be
nice in order to gain favor
with people. Over the past fifty years, business leaders have
tried to harness the insights
of psychology to make people feel empowered. These attempts

have often failed and
led to cynicism among employees because business leaders have
ignored the moral
commitments of empowerment. Without honesty, sincerity, and
authenticity, empower-
ment is bogus and makes a mockery of one of America’s most
cherished values, the
freedom to choose (Ciulla, 2004, p.80).
At the interpersonal level, the relationship is based on
influence, courage and comprehension
from both sides. The leader must know how to become a
follower, and the follower must
take responsibility and voice his or her concerns about the
organization. Another distinction
is apparent from this study; followership is not the same as
following. Following is impelled
47
SYLLA
(consciously or unconsciously influenced) by actions of leaders.
In this sense the follower
has no choice. Whether it is the influence of informational
power or that impelled through
coercion or reward or by acceptance of authoritative rule, the
following is a foregone conclu-
sion: the leader is in control. Stated another way, following is
reactive. A successful leader-
follower relationship is predicated on the “proper” reaction of
the follower to the initiative
of the leader. Therefore, the “action” closes with response of

the follower. This dynamic is
often codified in the hierarchy. These formal (rule bound)
relationships may be critical to
organizational processes (both the “leader” and the “follower”
have to know their role). In
this sense the leader looks for a following.
In contrast followership is an a priori choice (self-conscious) of
the individual in the
context of his or her relationship to the nominal leader. Issues
of authority and rank play
little or no role in such a choice. Followership is interactive.
Weick’s double interact
demonstrates the interactive character of the leadership-
followership dynamic. The leadership
double interact requires that both leader and follower have a
choice in whether or not to
participate; the leader is the reactor to request for help, which
requires that organization au-
thority figures look for opportunities to follow. Finally, this is
an informal process involving
a virtually continuous search for new data and knowledge
through interpersonal interaction
with others.
Summary
To this compendium we suggest additional attributes of leaders
and followers; a general
theory of leadership part II as it were.
About leaders….
• Leaders are persons in search of the opportunity to follow
• Leaders know when to become followers
• Success rests with the informal organizations

Followers can make “good” authority figures successful, but
they cannot substitute
for “bad” leaders
•
• There is no permanent substitute for authority
About leadership….
• Leadership is learned
• Experiences (good and bad)
• Talent search
Giving in and giving over to more talented persons•
• Leadership is about exhibiting and affirming ethical values
Future oriented•
• Concerned about consequences
• Leadership is open-minded/consensus building
• Leadership is not only ethical, intellectual, analytic and
rational, but it is also emo-
tional, intuitive and visceral (instinctual?)
• Leadership is the desire to serve
• May be as simple as answering questions
48
SOCIAL SCIENCES

• Participation in the “informal” organization
About followership…
• Followership is a choice
• Cannot have leaders without followers
• The follower is in charge/controls the situation by the choices
made
• “Success” is in the hands of followers
• Interactive partnership; it is not a hierarchical relationship
• Followers must be capable as well as desirous of following
References
Arendt, Hannah. (2003) Responsibility and Judgment. New
York: Schocken Press.
Baker, Susan. (2007). Followship: the theoretical foundation of
a contemporary construct”. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50-60.
Bass, Bernard M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of
Leadership: Theory, Research, and Mana-
gerial Application, 3rd edition. New York: The Free Press.
Baumard, Phillipe. (1999). Tacit Knowledge in Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burns, James MacGregor. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper
Collins.
Bryman, A. (1996). “Leadership in organization”. In Clegg, S.,
C.Hardy, and W. Nord. (Eds). Handbook
of Organization Studies. Sage, London, 276-292.
Carnevale, David (1995). Trustworthy Government: Leadership
and Management Strategies for
Building Trust and High Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Ciulla, Joanne B. (2004). “Leadership and the Problem of Bogus
Empowerment” In Joanne Ciulla
(Ed).Ethics, the Heart of Leadership.Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers, 59-82.
Covey, Stephen R. (1989).The 7 Habits of Highly Effective
People: Restoring the Character Ethic.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
___________. (2004). The 8 th Habit: From Effectiveness to
Greatness. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Cox III, Raymond W., Susan Buck and Betty Morgan. (2011).
Public Administration in Theory and
Practice, 2nd edition. New York: Longman.
Cox, Jr., Taylor. (1993) Cultural Diversity in Organizations:
Theory Research and Practice. San
Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Fayol, Henri. (1937). “The Administrative Theory in the State.”
In Gulick and Urwick (Eds). Papers
on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public
Administration.
Fiedler, Fred E. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, Fred and Joseph Garcia. (1987). New Approaches to
Effective Leadership: Cognitive Resources
and Organizational Performance. John Wiley & Sons. New
York, NY.
Follett, Mary Parker. (1937). “The Process of Control.” In
Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick (Eds.)
Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: The
Institute of Public Administration,

160–169.
__________. (1996). “The essentials of leadership.” In P.
Graham (Ed.), Mary Parker Follett:
Prophet of management. Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing, 163-177
French, Jr. J. R. P. and B. H. Raven (1959).”The Bases of
Social Power.” In D. Cartwright (Ed.).
Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social
research, 150-167.
49
SYLLA
Gulick, Luther (1937). “Notes on the Theory of Organization.”
In Luther Gulick and LyndallUrwick
(Eds.). Papers on the Science of Administration. New York:
Institute of Public Administration,
3–46.
Haugen, Brenda (2006). Douglas MacArthur: America’s general
Minneapolis, MN: Compass Point
Books.
Hollander, E.P. and W. B. Webb (1955). “Leadership,
followership, and friendship: An analysis of
peer nominations.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Vol. 50, 163-167.
Hollander, E.P.(1992). Leadership, Followership, self and
others. The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 3.

43-54.
________. (1997). “How and why active active followers matter
in leadership”. In Adams &Webster
(Eds). Kellogg leadership studies project working papers: The
balance of leadership and
followership. College Park, MD: Academy of Leadership Press,
11-30.
_________. (2004). “Ethical Challenges in the Leader-Follower
Relationship” in Joanne B. Ciulla.
Ed. Ethics, the heart of leadership. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers, 47-58.
Jung, Dong and Bruce Avolio. (2000). “Opening the black box:
an experimental investigation of the
mediating effects of trust and value congruence on
transformational and transactional lead-
ership”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 949-964.
Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. (2007). The Leadership
Challenge, 4thed. San Francisco, CA.:
Josey-Bass.
Locke, Chiok-Foong. (2001). “Leadership behaviours: effects
on job satisfaction, productivity and
organizational commitment”. Journal of Nursing Management,
Vol 9, 191-204.
Manchester, William (1978). American Caesar, Douglas
MacArthur, 1880-1964. Boston: Little, Brown.
Michaelson, Gerald (2003). Sun Tzu for success: how to use the
art of war to master challenges and
accomplish the most important goals in your life. Avon, MA:
Adams Media Corp

Plagens, Gregory K. (2009). “The Role of Formal Leaders in
Growing and Maintaining Social Capit-
al”.The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social
Sciences, 3 (12), 83-91.
Raven, Bertram. (2008). “The Bases of Power and the
Power/Interaction Model of Interpersonal Influ-
ence”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8(1), 1-22.
Taylor, Frederick. (1911). The Principles of the Scientific
Management. New York: Harper Brothers.
Weber, Max (Gerth and Mills, Trans). (1946). From Max
Weber. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weick, Karl. (1979) Social Psychology of Organization 2nd ed.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub-
lishing.
About the Authors
Dr. Raymond W. Cox Ⅲ
Raymond W. Cox III is a Professor and Interim Chair of the
Department of Public Adminis-
tration and Urban Studies at the University of Akron. He
received his PhD in Public Admin-
istration and Policy from Virginia Tech. Dr. Cox is the author
of nearly sixty academic and
professional publications (including three books with another
being readied for publication),
a dozen reports for government agencies, as well as nearly fifty
professional papers. His
articles have appeared in the leading journals in the field of
public management, including
Public Administration Review, Public Administration Quarterly,
Public Integrity, the Inter-
national Journal of Public Administration and the American
Review of Public Administration.

His service to the profession was recognized with the
prestigious Donald C. Stone Award
from the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).
In served a two-year term as
the Chair of ASPA’s Section on Ethics and next year begins a
term as Chair of the Section
on Intergovernmental Administration and Management. He is
also the Chair of the Local
50
SOCIAL SCIENCES
Government Management Education Committee of the National
Association of Schools of
Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). During a career
that has spanned considerably
more than three decades Dr. Cox has had three stints in the
public service, first as a legislative
analyst (Speaker’s Office, Massachusetts House of
Representatives), as a Program Man-
ager/Director for the National Science Foundation and as the
Chief of Staff to a Lieutenant
Governor (New Mexico). Because of this combination of
professional and academic exper-
ience he was approved for the Fulbright Senior Specialist
Program. His first assignment was
to develop a performance measurement training program for
mid-level managers in the
government of Latvia. Later he created a career development
training program for that gov-
ernment. In 2007 he was selected as Research Chair in Public
Policy at McGill University

under the Fulbright Program.
Gregory K. Plagens
Professor Plagens’s research interests are in public policy,
education policy, public adminis-
tration, social capital, human resource management, state and
local government, and leader-
ship. He is currently teaching courses in quantitative analysis,
public policy, and leadership
at the University of Akron, where he arrived in 2006 after
completing a doctoral degree in
political science at the University of South Carolina. Preceding
full-time graduate studies,
Professor Plagens held cabinet-level public relations and
communications positions in South
Carolina in three public school districts, the last of which had
4,500 employees and 26,000
students. He has an undergraduate degree from Bowling Green
State University in journalism
and spent 18 months as a newspaper reporter before entering
public service.
Keba Sylla
Mr. Sylla is a doctoral student in Public Administration at The
University of Akron, USA.
51
SYLLA
Copyright of International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social
Sciences is the property of Common Ground

Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
A Fresh Look at Followership:
A Model for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles
Kent Bjugstad
Comcast Spotlight
Elizabeth C. Thach, Karen J. Thompson, and Alan Morris
Sonoma State University
ABSTRACT
Followership has been an understudied topic in the academic
literature and an
underappreciated topic among practitioners. Although it has
always been
important, the study of followership has become even more
crucial with the
advent of the information age and dramatic changes in the
workplace. This

paper provides a fresh look at followership by providing a
synthesis of the
literature and presents a new model for matching followership
styles to
leadership styles. The model’s practical value lies in its
usefulness for describing
how leaders can best work with followers, and how followers
can best work with
leaders.
Introduction
Followership has been an understudied discipline. As far back
as 1933,
management scholar Mary Parker Follett advocated more
research into a topic
that she stated was “of the utmost importance, but which has
been far too little
considered, and that’s the part of followers…” (1949, p. 41).
The lack of
attention in researching followers has changed little since
Follett delivered her
call to arms over 70 years ago. While some scholars are
beginning to look more
closely at followership, this trend is less evident in the
mainstream business
world. A book search on the Amazon.com website revealed
95,220 titles
devoted to leadership (Bjugstad, 2004). Bjugstad’s search on
followership found
just 792 titles, and the majority of those books focused on either
spiritual or
political followership. Overall, the ratio of leadership to
followership books was

120:1. The lack of research and emphasis on followership
relative to leadership
in the business world is ironic considering that the two are so
intertwined.
One of the reasons followers haven’t been researched is that
there is a stigma
associated with the term “follower.” Followership may be
defined as the ability to
effectively follow the directives and support the efforts of a
leader to maximize a
structured organization. However, the term “followership” is
often linked to
negative and demeaning words like passive, weak, and
conforming. According
to Alcorn (1992), followers have been systematically devalued
and, for many, the
very word itself conjures up unfavorable images. This
stereotype has caused
people to avoid being categorized as followers. Research done
by Williams and
Miller (2002) on more than 1,600 executives across a wide
range of industries
indicated that over one-third of all executives are followers in
some fashion. Yet,
rarely did any of the executives concede that they were
followers. The statement
© 2006 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All
Rights Reserved. 304
“Always be a leader, never a follower!” has gone a long way
toward adding to the
stigma of being a follower.

Another reason there is so little research on followership arises
from a
misconception that leadership is more important than
followership. The
assumption that good followership is simply doing what one is
told, and that
effective task accomplishment is the result of good leadership,
doesn’t amplify
the merits of the follower role. According to Meindl (1987),
management and
organizational behavior have been dominated by the concept of
leadership,
which has assumed a romanticized, larger than life role as a
result.
Organizational literature is full of studies of leadership
characteristics, reflecting
the belief that good or bad leadership largely explains
organizational outcomes.
In spite of its obvious relevance to leadership, followership is
rarely discussed
when corporations seek to better themselves. Instead, the focus
turns to
developing leadership skills. Much attention is paid to what
makes a leader
successful because the thinking is that as the leader succeeds, so
does the
organization. However, this view ignores the fact that leaders
need followers to
accomplish their goals.
It does seem ironic that the effectiveness of a leader is to a
great extent
dependent on the willingness and consent of the followers.
Without followers,
there can be no leaders. Indeed, Hansen (1987) advanced that

active
followership means the leader’s authority has been accepted
which gives
legitimacy to the direction and vision of the leader. Without
the eyes, ears,
minds, and hearts of followers, leaders cannot function
effectively. Similarly,
Depree (1992) asserted that leaders only really accomplish
something by
permission of the followers.
Changes in the workplace also highlight the need for examining
followership in
more depth. The traditional organizational hierarchy between
leaders and their
followers has eroded over time thanks to expanding social
networks and the
growing empowerment of followers through their ability to
access information
more easily (Cross & Parker, 2004; Brown, 2003). For
example, employees now
have access to information about their company and its
competitors via the
Internet that they were never privy to in the past. As Brown
(2003) observed,
leaders are “no longer the exclusive source of vital information
about their
companies or fields; therefore they can no longer expect to be
followed blindly by
their now well-informed, more skeptical ranks” (p. 68).
Furthermore, the
incidents at such companies as Enron, WorldCom, and Adelphia
have led
followers to question and distrust top leadership. Mergers,
acquisitions, and
downsizing have also accounted for more jaded followers. In

addition, Maccoby
(2004) stated that “the changing structure of families – more
single-parent
homes, dual working parents, and so on - have begun to create
work
environments where people value traditional leaders less” (p.
79). Perhaps this
coincides with the decline in respect for authority figures in
general. Whatever
the reason, these changes signal the need to reevaluate the
tendency to focus
on leadership to the exclusion of followership.
© 2006 Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management. All
Rights Reserved. 305
Many leaders have realized that developing their followers’
skills is critical for
creating high performance organizations. These developmental
approaches
come with a variety of names – total quality management, team
building, quality
of work life, job enrichment, reengineering, empowerment,
management by
objectives, etc. Lawrence and Nohria (2002) stated that
organizations that fail to
develop their workforces may not be competitive in the future.
As the cost of
intellectual capital increases, it is critical to have a supply of
talented followers
(Citrin, 2002). The old saying, “People are our most important
asset” has never
been more true.

270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx

270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx

Similar to 270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx (20)

More from tamicawaysmith

More from tamicawaysmith (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

270 • BPA P. Gatti, C.G. Cortese, M. Tartari, C. Ghislieri.docx