See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328043118
The-Essence-of-Followership--Review-of-the-Literature-andFuture-Research-Directions
Chapter · October 2018
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-4996-3.ch006
CITATIONS
READS
4
2,808
3 authors:
Sajjad Nawaz Khan
Abdul Halim Busari
Iqra university Karachi
University Malaysia Sarawak
7 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
13 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Siti mariam Abdullah
University Malaysia Sarawak
13 PUBLICATIONS 43 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Book: Leadership and Followership in an Organizational Change Context View project
Educational Leadership and Management View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sajjad Nawaz Khan on 05 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
148
Chapter 6
The Essence of Followership:
Review of the Literature and
Future Research Directions
Sajjad Nawaz Khan
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Abdul Halim Busari
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Siti Mariam Abdullah
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
ABSTRACT
Followership is an emerging field of research in the current era. This chapter reviews
followership literature and provides future research directions. This review is based
on two theoretical frameworks of followership, namely role-based approach and
constructionist approach. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a cursory review
of followership research conducted in the last two decades. This chapter is a good
starting point for novice researchers who want to pursue research in followership
and leadership. In relations to future research directions, research topics that could
be investigated in the light of leadership and followership are proposed.
INTRODUCTION
The world recognises Bill Gates, Elon Mask, Steve Jobs and many other industrial
groves who has revolutionized world with their remarkable inventions like
personal computers, Tesla motors, Space X, Apple I-phone and Mac Book. Apart
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-4996-3.ch006
Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Essence of Followership
from industrial leaders the world also knows Abdul Sattar Edhi, Mother Teresa,
Helen Keller who were philanthropists and social leaders of their time. But there
is a question: what makes them great leaders besides their personal qualities like
creativity, vision, and ambition? To answer this question Riggio, Chaleff, and
Lipman-Blumen, (2008) argued that regardless of who is memorialized as founder,
no organization or nation is built without the combined effort of a unsung yet
enthusiastic groups of followers. Many academicians and practitioners confess
that there is no leadership without followership or following behaviour. We know
that behind the success of Tesla, Microsoft and Apple there is considerable and
continuous efforts of many individuals. In spite of such importance little attention
has been given to followership in leadership research in the past and the reason is
followership has been correlated to demeaning and negative connotation like weak,
passive and conforming. The second reason is the misconception that leadership is
more important than followership (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006).
In recent times, followership has caught the attention of academics since Kelley’s
(1988) article, “In Praise of Followers” published in the Harvard Business Review
and Challeff‟s (1995) book about courageous followers. According to Fairhurst
and Uhl-Bien, (2012) the process of leadership is co-created by the relational and
social connections between individuals. Followership is deemed compulsory for
leadership. Which means that for the leadership process, following behaviours is a
vital component. Due to such importance of followership in leadership process this
chapter is devoted to elaborate followership by reviewing followership literature
under two main approaches (role-based approach and constructionist approach) of
followership,
BACKGROUND
Kelley (1988), articulated that for organizational success not only leadership but
followership is equally important. Chaleff’s (1995) work about courageous followers
also claimed that followers are not passive subordinates but active participants of
the organization. Thus it has been known for a long time that followership and
followers are important to leadership. However in spite of a large number of research
studies on leadership in organizational studies (Yukl, 2012), less attention has been
paid to followership (Bligh, 2011; Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 2008; Sy, 2010).
The study of followers as an important part of the leadership process, through their
approval of followership has been mostly missed in the literature of leadership.
According to Uhl-Bien et al., (2014) the oversight of followership is due to in a
large part to misunderstanding and confusion about the constructs of followership
and how they relate to leadership. This confusion is due to the reason that we have
149
The Essence of Followership
not understood the process of leadership that is co-created in relational and social
interactions between people (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). Following behaviours
show willingness to defer to someone else one way or another (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
This is similar for granting leader identity and for oneself claiming follower identity
(DeRue & Ashford, 2010). “If leadership involves actively influencing others, then
followership involves allowing oneself to be influenced” (Uhl-Bien & Pillai, 2007).
Additionally, nowadays with shared, distributed leadership where individuals play
the role of both a leader and a follower at the same time has positively identified
that the concept of followership has become important to both academician and
practitioners (Crossman & Crossman, 2011;Horsfall, 2001).
Defining Followership
Many authors like (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982; Kelley, 1992; Kellerman, 2008;
Northouse, 2007; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014) have defined followership differently and
used it as a synonym of terms like subordinate, participants, partners, collaborators,
and constituents. One of the main reasons that followership does not get too much
attention in leadership research is its misconception with many other terms. This
chapter incorporate Uhl-Bien et al., (2014) definition of followership that explains
followership with two different lenses. “The study of followership involves an
investigation of the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership
process” (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014, p. 15). This definition classifies followership into
two approaches, followership as a role or position and as a social process. The Role
theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) describes followership as a role performed by people
on a formal or informal position. The second category explained followership in
relational or constructionist lens. This approach argued that leadership is co-created
through the relational interactions among leaders and followers (DeRue & Ashford,
2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2012). The subsequent discussion of
followership in this chapter is based on these two perspectives/approaches (rolebased and relational or constructionist approaches) of followership.
Role-Based Views of Followership
Role-based views as its name implies identify followership and leadership as a role
or behaviour enacted by an individual in a hierarchical context. The basic concern
of role-based views is to advance the understanding of how follower and leaders
(subordinates and manager) work together in ways of contributing or detracting from
leadership and organizational outcomes (Oc et al., 2013; Sy, 2010). According to
Carsten et al., (2010) and Sy, (2010) these views concentrate on phenomenon like
follower schema, follower role orientations, and implicit followership theories. Role150
The Essence of Followership
based approaches also shed light on how followers’ styles, characteristics and traits
influence leaders and leadership outcomes (Dvir & Shamir, 2003; Howell & Shamir,
2005). Traditionally followers were observed as obedient (passive) individuals, but
conversely in the late 20th century theorists generally agreed that followers are active
participants in leaders-follower relationships. According to Shamir (2007, 2012)
removing followership from the leadership equation indicates that we are not studding
leadership but a social phenomenon like collaboration and team work. These views
highlight that followership or followers are the active agents of leadership that affect
leaders’ behaviours. This approach based on the following models of followership.
Kelley Followership Model
In his book “The Power of Followership” (1992), Kelley introduced a model of
followership with two main dimensions: 1) independent critical thinking and 2) active
engagement. Independent critical thinking followers provide constructive criticism
and do not follow blindly. Followers under this dimension are more productive and
enthusiastic and provide valuable suggestions to their leaders in difficult situations:
they know the impact of their actions and are creative and energetic. On the other
hand, followers with dependent and non-critical attitudes blindly follow and accept
leaders’ instructions as they are (Kelley, 2008, 1992). The second dimension,
active engagement, identifies followers with their active participation and the sense
of ownership they have. Followers actively participate in decision making and
demonstrate a valuable role as important individuals in the team or organization.
Conversely, followers who are not actively engaged are “mostly parasites and can’t
make it to the bathroom on their own,” and “don’t think” (Kelley, 1992).On the
basis of these two dimensions, Kelley (1992) proposed four styles of followership:
the sheep, the yes-people, the alienated and the stars followers. Later, Kelley added
another style which he refers as pragmatic followers (Figure, 1)
The Sheep
According to Kelley (1988, 1992, and 2008) sheep followers are passive and
dependent and uncritical thinkers. They lack a sense of responsibility and do not
take any initiative. This type of followers waits for their leaders continuous direction
and motivation. They only deal with the task assigned to them and do not participate
actively.
151
The Essence of Followership
The Yes-People
As its name implies they always follow the leader’s instructions and are always on
the leader side. Yes-people or conformists are positive but mostly rely on the leader’s
thinking and direction. For instance, when they finish any specified task assigned by
their leader, they will go and ask again, “what should we do next”? These followers
are not independent critical thinkers and depend on the leader’s thinking ability
(Kelley, 2008). In terms of organizational success, yes-people do not contribute too
much because they are mostly limited to their leaders, teams or groups.
Alienated Followers
Alienated followers are energetic, but they do not use their energies for the betterment
of organization, instead they think for themselves. They resist most of the decisions
and course of actions due to cynical and skeptical thinking (Kelley, 2008). They also
show resistance to change because they do not want to leave their comfort zone and
consider themselves as the only people who criticize their bosses.
Star Followers
Star followers also referred to effective or exemplary followers are energetic and
active. They give a tough time to their leaders as they constructively criticise leaders’
decisions in the favour of organizational success. They are independent and critical
thinkers. They also participate in decision making and provide full support to their
leaders in times of crisis. Star followers always work according to the mission and
vision of the organization. According to Kelley (2008) star followers are mostly
referred as “my right-hand person” or my “go-to person.”
Pragmatic Followers
Pragmatics are mostly reactive to situations. They will be always on the vantage
point and will observe. They will not try to take action and will not let the leader or
organization leave them behind (Kelley, 2008). Pragmatic followers are the status
quo preservers, because they think “If I got all excited every time there was a new
leader or a change of direction, my wheels would be spinning constantly. Leaders
come and go. New visions come and go. If I just sit here and wait it out, I won’t
have to do all that work.” (Kelley, 2008 p. 8).
In his model Kelley categorized followership on the basis of follower’s role and
behaviour. Kelley suggested, though leadership dominate the research field but
152
The Essence of Followership
Figure 1. Kelley (2008)
mostly leader plays both roles as a follower and as a leader in different situations
(Kelley, 1988). Thus it is important to include followership in leadership equation
because leadership cannot operate in vacuum without followership.
IRA CHALEFF’S THE COURAGEOUS FOLLOWERS
Three years after Kelley’s followership model, Ira Chaleff published his book named
“The Courageous Followers: Standing Up to and for Our Leaders”. Similar to
Kelley, Chaleff elaborates followership on the basis of role or behaviour produced
by followers in any situation. The two critical dimensions of this model consists of
1) the degree of support of followers to their leaders and 2) the degree of challenging
the role or behaviour of their leaders which are harmful for the organization and for
their group values (Chaleff, 2009, 2003). On the basis of these dimension Chaleff
proposed five different styles of courageous followers which are 1) partner, 2)
implementer 3) individualist 4) resource (Figure 2).
Partner
Partner followers support their leader enthusiastically but also challenge their
leader’s behaviour whenever needed. Followers in this quadrant display many of
the courageous follower’s characteristics (Chaleff, 2009, 2003). Partner followers
are more purpose oriented, willing to take risks and focus on self-development and
153
The Essence of Followership
Figure 2. Chaleff (2009)
growth. This type of followers supports their leaders and tries to correct their actions.
In this type of relationship both parties (i.e leaders and followers) must be proactive
and will help each other to achieve the ultimate purpose (Chaleff, 2009, 2003).
Implementer
Followers’ who lie in this quadrant are high in support but low in challenge. Leaders
mostly like this type of followers because they are doers, do not need much explanation
and do not challenge their leaders. However if they notice that the leader is on
wrong path, they will not tell the leader, but if they inform their leader regarding
any mistake, they not take it serious whether their leaders take their suggestions
serious or not (Chaleff, 2009).
Individualist
These are the followers who never hesitate to confront their leaders. Followers in
this quadrant are quite challenging and always convey their thoughts to the leader;
responding with opinions of what they really think about a situation or any specific
action or policy. However, they are not much supportive of the leader and due to
too much criticism and challenging attitude leader will side-line and try to keep
them silent. Followers with this followership style can grow only when they support
leader’s actions for the mutual purpose of the group (Chaleff, 2009, 2003).
154
The Essence of Followership
Resource
These followers are both low in support and low in challenge. They just come daily
to the organization and leave in the evening. Followers in this quadrant are limited
to the assigned tasks handed to them by the leader. In spite of that, it is very difficult
for them to make any major contributions to the organization and also to advance
their career. They can grow when they start to participate in group or organizational
purpose and to critically analyse the leader’s decisions and provide constructive
criticism whenever needed.
Chaleff’s work primarily focused on followership development and more pragmatic
and practical in terms of subordinates and their relations with their leaders than
Kelley followership styles (Kellerman, 2008). But intentionally and ideologically,
Chaleff and Kelley’s work have some similarities as both scholars focused on the
power, thinking and engagement capabilities of followers. Chaleff’s writing mostly
focused on workplace followers, in large organizations. According to Chaleff, (2003,
2009) followers “have far more power than they generally understand” but what they
lack is the courage, which is important in balancing the relationship with leaders.
KELLERMAN FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES
Kellerman (2008) defines followership on the basis of role or rank “Followers are
subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than do their superior and
who therefore usually, but not invariably fall into line” (p. xix). Kellerman took the
political approach to study followership. Unlike Kelley and Chaleff, she suggested
a topology based on single dimension which she refers to as level of engagement.
On the basis of level of engagement Kellerman (2008) divides followers into five
types; on one end of the continuum there are followers who do absolutely nothing
and on other side there are followers who are deeply committed and passionately
involved. The types are: isolate, bystander, participant, activist, and diehard.
Isolates
Isolates are followers who are completely detached. They do not care and do not
know anything about their leaders. They are not interested in what is going on around
them and do not do anything. Being isolates these followers support the status quo
and also support the leaders who do not like changes. Their attitudes and behaviours
are unnoticeable at the top and if their number is large enough they are dangerous
155
The Essence of Followership
for the organization (Kellerman, 2007, 2008). To normalize the negative effects
caused by isolates, leaders on the top level need to consult with other lower level
leaders (managers) by conducting informal and formal conversation session about
isolate managers or employees.
Bystanders
These are the followers who only observe but do not participate. They deliberately
do not want to engage with the group and with the leader. Sometimes, bystanders
may engage passively for their self-interest but they are de-motivated most of the
times to engage actively, and they are also status quo lovers (Kellerman, 2008).
Sometimes, they are like the yes people defined by Kelley (1992) as at work they
do as they are told. Leaders like this type of followers who only do as directed and
do not disturb them. Kellerman, (2007) argued that through proper incentives and
reward leaders can boost the level of engagement of their bystander followers.
Participants
Participants are more engaged followers than bystanders. They clearly favour or
oppose their organization, group or their leaders. They are more concern with their
self-interest (Kellerman, 2008). In terms of participation, they are highly coveted and
they seem like fuel that drives the engine. They are good in making junior partner.
On the other hand, when they disapprove and disengage from leaders, the situation
gets more challenging, because they act as independent agents and they are aware
about the situation and organizational atmosphere.
Activists
These followers are more energetic, eager and engaged than both participants
and bystander. They work either to support their leaders and make them strong or
against their leader to undermine or even unset them. Activists are somehow change
oriented and care about their leaders and about each other. If the leaders lead them
with honesty and show them the right path, activists are an asset to their leaders and
to their fellow followers. But if they are misled or misunderstood activists can be
dangerous (Kellerman, 2008). So activists should be watched and judged by their
leaders. Kellerman called them “voice of the faithful”.
156
The Essence of Followership
Diehards
Diehards have the strong nerves to do anything they want, and they go beyond
expectation for their cause. They are the most devoted followers of their leaders or
conversely they are ready to remove leaders from authority by any means. Diehards
are so energetic and enthusiastic that they can even risk their lives for their cause
(Kellerman, 2008). But in the organizational setting, Diehard are rare. Kellerman
(2008) gave an example of the military as Diehard followers. She claimed that
almost all modern nation’s armed forces organized along strict hierarchal lines on
the basis of two assumptions. First the subordinate will follow the supervisor’s
orders. Second is from top to bottom, everyone, if necessary is ready to be wounded
or even killed in battle.
Kellerman argues that follower engagement produces different outcomes as
she mentioned that the line between the role of leader and follower are still blur.
Sometimes leaders follow and followers lead (e.g. whistle blower). She further
claims that some of us are followers most of the time and leaders some of the time.
Sometimes we play both roles simultaneously. In comparison with Chaleff (1995)
and Kelley (1992) models, Kellerman model is mostly theoretical. Kellerman’s view
is too philosophical and described follower types according to the world events in
political doctrine which is very difficult to understand in organizational settings.
IMPLICIT FOLLOWERSHIP THEORIES
According to Sy (2010, p. 73), implicit followership theories (IFTs) are “individuals’
personal assumptions about the traits and behaviors that characterize followers”.
IFTs has implications on the results of leader-follower relationship because it may
form how individuals (leaders) judge and respond to followers. By addressing how
leaders and followers decide, perceive, behave and take actions, Implicit followership
theories articulate a major gap in leadership literature (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Sy
(2010) articulated that managers report what are the traits and behaviours they believe
followers should possess. Later these traits and behaviour were then combined into
the instrument of implicit followership theories.
IFTs divide the traits and behaviours of followers into first-order six-factor
structure and second-order two-factor structure. The first order six factor structure
consists of “Industry, Enthusiasm, Good Citizen, Conformity, Insubordination
and Incompetence” and the second order two-factor structure involves “Industry,
Enthusiasm, Good Citizen” which is referred as followership prototype and
“Conformity, Insubordination, Incompetence” which is referred as followership antiprototype. Finding explain that both first-order six-factor structure and second-order
157
The Essence of Followership
two-factor structure most accurately represent implicit followership theories (Sy,
2010). The terms prototype and anti-prototype have different meanings in literature.
These terms may be used to highlight distinctiveness and representativeness of
certain characteristics such as ‘‘coordinates groups” and ‘‘exercises influence”
are prototypic and ‘‘requests approval” and ‘‘agrees readily” are anti-prototypic
characteristics to identify leader and non-leader attributes. According to Epitropaki
and Martin, (2004) and Offermann et al., (1994), these terms also have been used to
highlight the positive and negative valence of attributes. For instance “Dedication” and
“Intelligence” are prototypic and “Masculinity” and “Tyranny” are anti-prototypic.
Sy (2010) implicit followership theories reflect the positive and negative valence
attributes of prototype followership and anti-prototype followership. Under leaderfollower context, upon activation of endorsed and internalized IFTs, people develop
response tendencies that are provoked without much conscious impact awareness
(Engle & Lord, 1997; Sy, 2010). Therefore, leaders who endorse and internalize
that followers are hardworking and productive, and go beyond expectation (i.e.
industrial dimension of IFT) provide more autonomy and have higher expectations
for followers. Likewise, leaders who internalize and endorse that followers are
slow, inexperienced and uneducated (i.e. incompetence IFT dimension) set lower
expectations for followers and are more likely to micro-manage (Epitropaki, Sy,
Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013). Whiteley et al., (2012) study investigate
the IFTs influence on Pygmalion effect and demonstrate perception-behaviour link.
Role-based views commonly identified the follower role in the leadership process.
Shamir, (2007) referred to this as “reversing the lens”. This means the traditional
leader centric approach deals with leaders as the causal agent while role-based
views deals with followers as the causal agents. These views explain followers as the
shapers of leaders’ actions or behaviours. Hollander, (1993) emphasized that plenty
of leadership research neglects the followers in the shaping of leaders actions. Using
this argument, Divr and Shamir (2003) investigated that followers developmental
characteristics (e.g., self-actualization needs, critical-independent approach, selfefficacy, collectivist orientation, active engagement in the task) positively predicts
transformational leadership among indirect followers but negative relationship
among direct followers. Thus in role-based views the lens shifted to followers from
leaders and provides active role to followers in leadership research.
CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEWS OF FOLLOWERSHIP
In recent times, many scholars challenge the leader-centric approaches and articulated
that leadership is a mutual influencial process independent of any formal position
(Bedeian & Hunt, 2006; Shamir, 2007; Carsten et al., 2010, Burak & Bashshur,
158
The Essence of Followership
2013; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Constructionist approaches deal with the process that
is mutually created leadership and followership. It explains that followership and/
or leadership is not a role (i.e role-based views) but is the mutual relationship or
relational interactions created by both the leaders and followers (DeRue & Ashford,
2010; Fairhurst & Grant, 2010). The Constructionist view investigates people’s social
and relational interactions to construct or knock down followership and leadership
(Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). These views is based on 1) Shamir’s co-production
approach (2007) 2) DeRue and Ashford’s approach (2010).
DERUE AND ASHFORD’S APPROACH
TO IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION
According to Derue and Ashford (2010), if leadership is not explained by hierarchal
position, then how leader follower relationship develops overtime. “What are the
relational and social processes involved in coming to see oneself, and being seen by
others, as a leader or a follower” (Derue & Ashford, 2010, p. 627). In answering this
question, Derue and Ashford (2010) portrayed a constructionist view that explains
leadership and followership as a co-constructed phenomenon that is based on an
interactive and mutual (reciprocal) identity of granting and claiming. This view is
based on the identity work of Pratt, Rockmann, and Kaufmann (2006) and Snow and
Anderson (1987) and the social interactionism of Blumer, (1969). This view proposes
the underlying process of identity in which people claim an identity and others grant
that identity and through this process the identities of leaders and followers become
socially constructed and forms the basis of leader-follower relationship.
Claiming means the action taken by an individual to declare (assert) their identity
as a follower or leader (Derue & Ashford, 2010). For instance, if manager claims
that “I am the leader of this group” or if a subordinate claims that “I am the follower
of this leader”. But claiming identity either as a leader or follower in any particular
situation is interdependent on the granting of identity. Granting identity refers to
offering or giving someone a leader or follower identity. According to Ul-Bien et al.,
(2014, p. 94) “Granting occurs when others bestow the claimed identity and claim
their own identity in support of the other (i.e., “I grant you a leader identity and claim
for myself a follower identity”). The relationship will be constructed when claims
are matched with grants and vice versa. If they are mismatched or not reciprocally
connected, leadership and followership will not be constructed. In followership,
this view identifies that for granting the leader role, there must be others to accept
the claims of follower identity otherwise leadership would not be constructed.
According to Uhl-Bien et al., (2014), this view or model has significant implications
for followership studies. For instance, in contrary to presenting leader and follower
159
The Essence of Followership
identities as static, one-way and intrapersonal, it is through social construction as
individuals who are involved in mutual relationships and their identities are shifting
and shaping over time.
SHAMIR COPRODUCTION
Based on Graen and Uhl-Bien, (1995) LMX (leader member exchange) theory and
Hollander’s (1993) idea of an active follower’s role, Shamir proposed a constructionist
view that explains that leaders and followers are jointly produced leadership outcomes,
which are the result of an effective leader-follower relationship. The role of the
follower in the leadership process (relationship) is to strengthen the vision, behaviour
and goals critical for the group and for the organizational success. According to
Shamir (2007, p. xi), “co-production positions the role of followers as broader
and more consequential than seen in traditional leader-centric theories”. This coproduction approach raises followers from passive recipients to active contributors
in the leadership process. In this view Shamir proposes that for leadership studies,
researchers’ need to investigate both leaders and followers.
According to Shamir (2007), this view or model decreases the dominant leadercentric view in many current theories and including the followers influence on the
leadership process. Shamir called this a more balanced approach that includes both
leaders and followers as the co-producer of leadership. Shamir reviewed certain
roles or behaviours like followers’ needs, identities, attitude and characteristics,
values and cognitive schema that affect the leadership process which need to be
investigated further.
In summary, constructionist views elaborate followership not as a role but a
following behaviour or process. Constructionist emphasized that without following
behaviour there is no leadership. Unlike role-based views, constructionist views
highlight both leaders and followers as the causal agents. Instead of investigating
leaders and followers as role or behaviour, we need to focus on leading and following
in order to study leadership process. The constructionist perspective explains
followership in how an individual or groups engage in following behaviour to
produce leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).
FOLLOWER-CENTRED PERSPECTIVES OF LEADERSHIP
In construction of leadership or leaders, follower-centric approaches focused on the
role of followers, unlike leader-centric views that focuses on the leaders’ behavior
and characteristics while investigating leadership. These approaches view leadership
160
The Essence of Followership
as a social construction process, and leadership produces the attributional, cognitive
and social identity of followers (Uhl-Bien, 2014).
Meindl, Ehrlich and Dukerich, (1985) work on the “romance of leadership” begin
a truly follower-centric approach to leadership. The romance of leadership approach
offered compelling evidence that positive or negative outcomes inside or around
organizations are attributed to leaders or leadership. Additionally, subsequent research
explained that individuals give more value to performance outcomes when they are
attributed to leaders or leadership: it is simply the halo effect (i.e. the tendency to
relate outcome that is the result of other factors). For instance, all Americans are
intelligent and good looking is the halo effect and it is basically a cognitive bias),
like if a leader is effective, people will ignore his/her poor performance and personal
short comings (Bligh, 2011; Meindl & Ehlrich, 1987). Thus, analyzing leadership
as a one sided story may be dangerous and continuing admiration or passion with
leadership can also be used to learn follower motivation (Meindl, 1985). Based on
this approach Meindl (1995), articulated that leadership effectiveness is related to
two important issues regarding the exiting leadership research. First, the relationship
between leaders and followers is reciprocal (mutual). Second, leadership emphasizes
on the connection between leaders and followers as constructed in the minds
of followers. Unlike the leader-centric approach that is based on the notion that
leadership outcomes should be based on leaders perceptions and self-report, this
view suggests that leadership outcomes should be based on followers’ perceptions
(Bligh & Schyns, 2007).
IMPLICIT LEADERSHIP THEORIES (ILTs)
According to Lord, Foti, and De Vader, (1984) and Lord and Maher, (1991) implicit
leadership theories (ILTs) are the prototypes or cognitive structures identifying the
traits and abilities that describe leaders. ILTs studies suggest that leader behavior is
characterized by the followers’ beliefs and schema that impact the extent to which
the followers attribute (relate) normative evaluation and effectiveness such as “good”
or “bad” to a leader. It is the crucial element of organizational sense making when
followers use their schemas to encode leadership information (Weick, 1979, 1995).
ILTs is also referred as lay theories because they created through the process of
socialization and past experiences and they are activated when some pre-existing
prototype or leaders categories followers’ hold in their memories match with leader
behavior (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord, 1985; Schyns & Meindl, 2005). ILTs are
important because they affect follower rating of leadership even if the followers have
little or ambiguous information about the leader behavior. ILTs help researchers to
161
The Essence of Followership
better understand whether and when people agree to follow or not to follow a leader
(Eden & Leviatan, 1975; Sivasubramaniam, Kroeck, & Lowe, 1997).
The importance of ILTs took a long time to be recognized as leadership
understanding, because early studies generally observed ILTs as a possible source
of bias in leadership measurement (e.g., Eden & Leviathan, 1975; Gioia & Sims,
1985). Lord et al. (1984) was the first in challenging that ILTs are the source of
measurement bias by emphasizing the influence of implicit leadership theories on
individual perceptions of leadership, and recognizing the ILTs value as a explanatory
organizational leadership framework (Epitropaki et al., 2013). The majority of the
studies in 1970s to early 1990s used laboratory experiments on undergraduate students
and was concentrated on the problems of content and measurement these studies
neglect the ILTs research in organizational setting (Lord & Maher, 1991). Lord and
Maher, (1991) argued that through ILTs, people can interpret the behaviour of his/
her dyad partner (followers) and as a basis for their own behaviour (leaders) within
the context of LMX (leader-member exchange). Four information processing models
proposed by Lord and Maher (1991) are applicable to leadership and followership
research: first is the rational model which argued that people have access to all
relevant information and has unlimited capacity in information processing. While
this model is considered to be important and followed as a benchmark model of
optimal information processing, it does not represent the kind of processing that takes
place. Second, is the expert model which differentiates experts from novices, such
as experts having well-organized knowledge structures due to their broad experience
in a specific context, and novices, those who need to participate in more demanding
complicated cognitive processes to get as much information as possible. Third, is the
six-stage circular cybernetic model, the dynamic model that presumes simultaneous
processing of current behaviour, past information and future planning. This model
postulates that expectations and behaviors are shaped by implicit theories through
self-fulfilling mechanisms (Darley & Fazio, 1980; Epitropaki et al., 2013).
The limited-capacity is the fourth and most influential model proposed by Lord
and Maher, (1991) based on the principles of cognitive simplification. According
to the model, by using pre-existing schemas and information processing resources
to an optimal level, perceivers (people) are able to respond effectively to limited
information situation. The leadership categorization approach (Rosch, 1978) is one
example of this model that receives much attention and stimulates significant empirical
contribution in the context of ILTs (e.g. Lord, 1985; Lord & Alliger, 1985; Lord &
Maher, 1991; Lord et al., 1984). The categorization approach argued specifically
that through past experiences and socialization, organizational members develop
ILTs with leaders. Prototypes or cognitive structures specify the characteristics (traits
and behaviours) that distinguish between leaders and non-leaders. Categorization is
162
The Essence of Followership
essential to human thinking and behaviour, cognitive categories help us to determine
the meaning when we apply it to the world and obtain experiences. According to
Fisk (1995), “Categories are cognitive structures that represent knowledge about
stimulus (leadership) and it attributes”. It has been referred by many names (labels),
like schema, concepts, stereotypes and scripts, while the content and structure of any
specific category is based on the assumptions associated with these labels (Medvedeff
& Lord, 2007). Thus leader categorization is based on the perceived match between
the leader traits and behaviour and the attributes of a pre-existing leader prototype
or category that individuals hold in memory (Epitropaki et al., 2013).
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
It is understood that past research mostly focused on leader- centric perspective and
ignored followers or followership. In the last two decades, followership has also
gained the attention of academicians to explore followership, the unexplored side of
leadership (Bjugstad et al., 2006; Bligh, 2011; Carsten et al., 2010; Chaleff, 1995;
Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1992; Meindl, 1995; Sy, 2010; Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien et
al., 2014). Based on the review of the literature there are a number of variables to be
studied such as organizational context (e.g downsizing, organizational change, worklife balance, temporality, and group dynamics) and culture influence on followership
and its relationship with leadership. There is also need to provide a reliable and
stable instrument to measure followership explicitly. There is another major issue
that still needs attention and that is the issue of semantic (the misconception about
followership). Followers or followership receive too much negative connotation in
the past like lazy, dependable, unproductive and it still strikes to the hearts of many
(Bligh, 2011). This connotation comes from the leader-centric perspective. Further
research is needed to dispel this negative connotation and shed light on the positive
and active role of followers in leadership development.
In today’s rapid changing environment, organizational structures are flatter and
the concepts of leadership are also changing like shared leadership, distributed
leadership and team leadership. This also results in changing follower role and
relationship. What should be done if there is one or more followers lead? Future
research need to focus on both implicit leadership and followership theories in order
to study the cognitive categorization of both leader and followers. It would help to
understand the complicated relationship between leaders and followers in flatter
organization structures.
163
The Essence of Followership
CONCLUSION
This chapter reviewed and discussed the followership literature. The primary focus
of this chapter is to shed light on the role-based and constructionist approaches to
followership. Role-based views argued that followership or leadership is a role or
behavior produced by any individual in a hierarchical position. On the other hand,
constructionist views articulate how people co-construct leadership or followership in
a relational or mutual relationship. Further, this chapter highlights implicit leadership
and followership theories that provide an emerging field of investigation in analyzing
both leadership and followership. Implicit leadership theories (ILTs) explained what
followers think about their leaders (i.e. how followers cognitive categories or schema
affect followers perception about their leaders), and ILTs; referred as follower-centric
perspective of leadership. Conversely, implicit followership theories argued what
leaders think about their followers (i.e. how followers behaviors, characteristics
shaped leader-follower relationship). This review conclude that in a successful
organization not only leadership but followership is equally important, and due to
such importance, followership is the hot area of research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
REFERENCES
Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions
of our forefathers. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 190–205. doi:10.1016/j.
leaqua.2005.12.006
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at
followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of
Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 304.
Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centered approaches. In The Sage
handbook of leadership (pp. 425–436). Sage.
Bligh, M. C., & Schyns, B. (2007). Leading question: The romance lives on:
Contemporary issues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3),
343–360. doi:10.1177/1742715007079316
164
The Essence of Followership
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
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(3), 543–562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015
Chaleff, I. (1995). The Courageous Follower. San Francisco: Ben-ett. Koehler
Publishers. Inc.
Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders.
Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership–a review of the
literature. Leadership, 7(4), 481–497. doi:10.1177/1742715011416891
Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising
in the social interaction sequence. The American Psychologist, 35(10), 867–881.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867
DeRue, S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social
process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 35(4), 627–647.
Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting
transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(3), 327–344. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00018-3
Eden, D., & Leviatan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the
factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60(6), 736–741. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736 PMID:1194175
Eden, D., & Leviathan, U. (1975). Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of
the factor structure underlying supervisory behavior scales. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60(6), 736–741. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.60.6.736 PMID:1194175
Engle, E. M., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leadermember exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4), 988–1010.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings:
Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293 PMID:15065976
165
The Essence of Followership
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit
leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of informationprocessing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005
Fairhurst, G. T., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership:
A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(2), 171–210.
doi:10.1177/0893318909359697
Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA):
Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6),
1043–1062. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.005
Fiske, S. T. (1995). 19. Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping.
In N. R. G. J. B. Veroff (Ed.), The Culture and Psychology Reader (pp. 438–456).
New York: New York University Place.
Gioia, D. A., & Sims, H. P. Jr. (1985). On avoiding the influence of implicit
leadership theories in leader behavior descriptions. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 45(2), 217–232. doi:10.1177/001316448504500204
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:
Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2),
219–247. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
Hersey, P. A., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior:
utilizing human resources (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational
features of leadership. Academic Press.
Horsfall, C. (2001). Team leaders make a difference in raising achievement. In C.
Horsfall (Ed.), Leadership Issues: Raising Achievement. London: Learning and
Skills Development Agency.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,
30(1), 96–112. doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281435
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2).
Wiley New York.
Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard
Business Review, 85(12), 84–91. PMID:18283918
166
The Essence of Followership
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing
leaders. Harvard Business School Press.
Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review Case Services.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want
to follow, and followers who lead themselves. Broadway Business.
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. The art of followership: How great
followers create great leaders and organizations, 5-16.
Lord, R. G., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). A comparison of four information processing
models of leadership and social perceptions. Human Relations, 38(1), 47–65.
doi:10.1177/001872678503800103
Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001). Contextual constraints
on prototype generation and their multilevel consequences for leadership perceptions.
The Leadership Quarterly, 12(3), 311–338. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00081-9
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership
categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership
perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–378.
doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking
perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Medvedeff, M. E., & Lord, R. G. (2007). Implicit leadership theories as dynamic
processing structures. In R. P. B. Shamir, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Followercentered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl
(pp. 19–50). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory:
A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341.
doi:10.1016/1048-9843(95)90012-8
Meindl, J. R., & Ehrlich, S. B. (1987). The romance of leadership and the evaluation
of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 30(1), 91–109.
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102. doi:10.2307/2392813
Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theories and practices. Sage Publications.
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence.
The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919–934. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.006
167
The Essence of Followership
Oc, B., Bashshur, M. R., & Moore, C. (2013). Stooges and squeaky wheels: How
followers shape leader fairness over time. Working paper.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K. Jr, & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership
theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5(1),
43–58. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders,
susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly,
18(3), 176–194. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.001
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional
identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of
identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.
doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786060
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership:
How great followers create great leaders and organizations (Vol. 146). John Wiley
& Sons.
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of Categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),
Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schyns, B., & Meindl, J. R. (2005). An overview of implicit leadership theories and
their application in organization practice. In Implicit leadership theories: Essays
and explorations. Information Age Publishing.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles
in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R.
Meindl (pp. ix–xxxix). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Shamir, B. (2012). Leadership research or post-leadership research: Advancing
leadership theory versus throwing out the baby with the bath water. In M. Uhl-Bien
& S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among
perspectives (pp. 477-500). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Kroeck, K., & Lowe, K. (1997). In the eye of the beholder:
Folk theories of leadership in an academic institution. The Journal of Leadership
Studies, 4(2), 27–42. doi:10.1177/107179199700400204
Snow, D. A., & Anderson, L. (1987). Identity work among the homeless: The verbal
construction and avowal of personal identities. American Journal of Sociology,
92(6), 1336–1371. doi:10.1086/228668
168
The Essence of Followership
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure,
and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001
Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. (2012). Paradigm interplay in relational leadership: A
way forward. In M. Uhl-Bien & S. Ospina (Eds.), Advancing relational leadership
research: A dialogue among perspectives (pp. 537–580). Charlotte, NC: Information
Age Publishers.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social
construction of followership. Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute
to the memory of James R. Meindl, 187-209.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership
theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 1(1), 41–74.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage (Atlanta, Ga.).
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers:
Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(5), 822–834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006
Yukl, G. (2012). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
ADDITIONAL READING
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & De Vader, C. L. (1984). A test of leadership categorization
theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 343–37. doi:10.1016/00305073(84)90043-6
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking
perceptions and performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (2008). The art of followership:
How great followers create great leaders and organizations (Vol. 146). John Wiley
& Sons.
169
The Essence of Followership
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership
theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Whiteley, P., Sy, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers:
Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. The Leadership Quarterly,
23(5), 822–834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Constructionist Approaches: These views explain followership as a relational
interaction between individuals to co-construct leadership and followership.
Followership: Followership is the study of the follower roles and following
behavior during the process of leadership.
Implicit Followership Theories: Implicit followership theories (IFTs) argued
what leaders think about their followers (i.e., how followers’ behaviors and
characteristics shaped leader-follower relationship).
Implicit Leadership Theories: Implicit leadership theories (ILTs) explain what
followers think about their leaders (i.e., how followers cognitive categories or schema
affect followers’ perceptions about their leaders).
Role-Based Approaches: These approaches explain followership as a role played
by individual under structured organizational hierarchy.
170
View publication stats