The Most Rapid Essay Writing Service For Your Academic Success

CHAPTER 12 Media
Adaptive Leadership ( Chapter 11 ), we focused on the efforts of leaders in relation to the work of followers in different contexts. The emphasis was on how leaders engage people to do adaptive work. In this chapter, we focus primarily on followers and the central role followers play in the leadership process. The process of leading requires the process of following. Leaders and followers together create the leadership relationship, and without an understanding of the process of following, our understanding of leadership is incomplete (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014).For many people, being a follower and the process of followership have negative connotations. One reason is that people do not find followership as compelling as leadership. Leaders, rather than followers, have always taken center stage. For example, in school, children are taught early that it is better to be a leader than a follower. In athletics and sports, the praise for performance consistently goes to the leaders, not the team players. When people apply for jobs, they are asked to describe their leadership abilities, not their followership activities. Clearly, it is leadership skills that are applauded by society, not followership skills. It is just simply more intriguing to talk about how leaders use power than to talk about how followers respond to power.While the interest in examining the active role of followers was first approached in the 1930s by Follett (1949), groundwork on follower research wasnt established until several decades later through the initial works of scholars such as Zaleznik (1965), Kelley (1988), Meindl (1990), and Chaleff (1995). Still, until recently, only a minimal number of studies have been published on followership. Traditionally, leadership research has focused on leaders traits, roles, and behaviors because leaders are viewed as the causal agents for organizational change. At the same time, the impact of followers on organizational outcomes has not been generally addressed. Researchers often conceptualize leadership as a leader-centric process, emphasizing the role of the leader rather than the role of the follower. Furthermore, little research has conceptualized leadership as a shared process involving the interdependence between leaders and followers in a shared relationship. Even though followers share in the overall leadership process, the nature of their role has not been scrutinized. In effect, followership has rarely been studied as a central variable in the leadership process.p.294There are indications that this is beginning to change. In a recent New York Times article, Susan Cain (author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Cant Stop Talking) decries the glorification of leadership skills in college admissions and curricula and argues that the world needs more followers. It needs team players, people called to service, and individuals committed to something outside of themselves. Followership is also receiving more attention now because of three major works devoted exclusively to the process of following: The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations by Riggio, Chaleff, and Lipman-Blumen (2008), Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders by Kellerman (2008), and Followership: What Is It and Why Do People Follow? by Lapierre and Carsten (2014). Collectively, these books have put the spotlight on followership and helped to establish it as a legitimate and significant area of study.In this chapter, we examine followership and how it is related to the leadership process. First, we define followers and followership and discuss the implications of these definitions. Second, we discuss selected typologies of followership that illustrate different styles used by followers. Next, we explore a formal theory of followership that has been set forth by Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) and new perspectives on followership suggested by Carsten, Harms, and Uhl-Bien (2014).  Last, we explore types of ineffective followership that contribute to destructive leadership.Followership DefinedIt is challenging to define followership because the term conjures up different meanings for people, and the idea of being a follower is positive for some and negative for others. For example, followership is seen as valuable in military situations when soldiers follow orders from a platoon leader to complete a mission, or when passengers boarding a plane follow the boarding agents instructions. In contrast, however, followers are thought of negatively in such situations as when people follow a cult leader such as David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, or in a college fraternity when individuals are required to conduct life-threatening hazing rituals with new members. Clearly, followership can be positive or negative, and it plays out differently in different settings.    SAGE Journal ArticlesConceptualising followership a review of the literatureCLICK TO SHOW    Licensed VideoThe Intersection of Followership and Leadershipp.295What is followership? Followership is a process whereby an individual or individuals accept the influence of others to accomplish a common goal. Followership involves a power differential between the follower and the leader. Typically, followers comply with the directions and wishes of leadersthey defer to leaders power.Followership also has an ethical dimension. Like leadership, followership is not amoral; that is, it is not a process that is morally neutral. Followership carries with it a responsibility to consider the morality of ones actions and the rightness or wrongness of the outcomes of what one does as a follower. Followers and leaders work together to achieve common goals, and both share a moral obligation regarding those goals. There are ethical consequences to followership and to what followers do because the character and behavior of followers has an impact on organizational outcomes.Role-Based and Relational-Based PerspectivesFollowership can be divided into two broad categories: role-based and relational-based (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).    SAGE Business CasesOrganizational Design Impacts FollowershipCLICK TO SHOWThe role-based perspective focuses on followers in regard to the typical roles or behaviors they exhibit while occupying a formal or informal position within a hierarchical system. For example, in a staff planning meeting, some people are very helpful to the group because they bring energy and offer insightful suggestions regarding how the group might proceed. Their role as engaged followers, in this case, has a positive impact on the meeting and its outcomes. Emphasis in the role-based approach is on the roles and styles of followers and how their behaviors affect the leader and organizational outcomes.    SAGE Journal ArticlesEnhancing authentic leadershipfollowershipCLICK TO SHOWThe relational-based approach to followership is quite different from the role-based approach. To understand the relational-based approach it is helpful to understand social constructivism. Social constructivism is a sociological theory that argues that people create meaning about their reality as they interact with each other. For example, a fitness instructor and an individual in an exercise class negotiate with each other about the kind of influence the instructor will have and the amount of influence the individual will accept. From a social constructivist perspective, followership is co-created by the leader and follower in a given situation. The meaning of followership emerges from the communication between leaders and followers and stresses the interplay between following and leading. Rather than focusing on roles, it focuses on the interpersonal process and one persons attempt to influence and the other persons response to these influence attempts. Leadership occurs within the interpersonal context of people exerting influence and responding to those influence attempts. In the relational-based approach, followership is tied to interpersonal behaviors rather than to specific roles (Carsten et al., 2010; DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014).p.296Table 12.1  Typologies of FollowershipSOURCE: Adapted from Conceptualizing followership: A review of the literature, by B. Crossman and J. Crossman, 2011, Leadership, 7(4), 481497.Typologies of FollowershipHow can we describe followers roles? Trying to do just that has been the primary focus of much of the existing followership research. As there are many types of leaders, so, too, are there many types of followers ( Table 12.1 ). Grouping followers roles into distinguishable categories to create an accurate classification system, or typology, of follower behaviors has been undertaken by several researchers. A typology enhances our understanding of the broader area of followership by breaking it down into smaller pieces. In this case, these pieces are different types of follower roles observed in various settings.The Zaleznik TypologyThe first typology of followers was provided by Zaleznik (1965) and was intended to help leaders understand followers and also to help followers understand and become leaders. In an article published in the Harvard Business Review, Zaleznik created a matrix that displayed followers behaviors along two axes: DominanceSubmission and ActivityPassivity ( Figure 12.1 ). The vertical axis represents a range of followers from those who want to control their leaders (i.e., be dominant) to those who want to be controlled by their leaders (i.e., be submissive). The horizontal axis represents a range of followers from those who want to initiate and be involved to those who sit back and withdraw. Based on the two axes, the model identifies four types of followers: withdrawn (submissive/passive), masochistic (submissive/active), compulsive (high dominance/passive), and impulsive (high dominance/active). Because Zaleznik was trained in psychoanalytic theory, these follower types are based on psychological concepts. Zaleznik was interested in explaining the communication breakdowns between authority figures and subordinates, in particular the dynamics of subordinacy conflicts. The follower types illustrated in Figure 12.1 exist as a result of followers responses to inner tensions regarding authority. These tensions may be unconscious but can often come to the surface and influence the communication in leaderfollower relationships.p.297Figure 12.1  Zalzenik Follower TypologySOURCE: Adapted from The dynamics of subordinacy, by A. Zaleznik, 1965, Harvard Business Review (p. 122).The Kelley TypologyKelleys (1992) typology ( Figure 12.2 ) is currently the most recognized followership typology. Kelley believes followers are enormously valuable to organizations and that the power of followers often goes unrecognized. He stresses the importance of studying followers in the leadership process and gave impetus to the development of the field of followership. While Zaleznik (1965) focused on the personal aspects of followers, Kelley emphasizes the motivations of followers and follower behaviors. In his efforts to give followership equal billing to leadership, Kelley examined those aspects of followers that account for exemplary followership.Kelley sorted followers styles on two axes: independent critical thinkingdependent uncritical thinking and activepassive. These dimensions resulted in five follower role types:    passive followers (sometimes pejoratively called sheep), who look to the leader for direction and motivation,    conformist followers, who are yes peoplealways on the leaders side but still looking to the leader for direction and guidance,    alienated followers, who think for themselves and exhibit a lot of negative energy,    pragmatics, who are fence-sitters who support the status quo but do not get on board until others do, andp.298Figure 12.2  Kelley Follower TypologySOURCE: Based on excerpts from The Power of Followership by Robert E. Kelly, copyright 1992 by Consultants to Executives and Organizations, Ltd. Used by permission of Doubleday, an imprint of the Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. All rights reserved.    exemplary followers (sometimes called star followers), who are active and positive and offer independent constructive criticism.Based on his observations, Kelley (1988, 2008) asserts that effective followers share the same indispensible qualities: (1) They self-manage and think for themselves, exercise control and independence, and work without supervision; (2) they show strong commitment to organizational goals (i.e., something outside themselves) as well as their own personal goals; (3) they build their competence and master job skills; and (4) they are credible, ethical, and courageous. Rather than framing followership in a negative light, Kelley underscores the positive dimensions of following.The Chaleff TypologyChaleff (1995, 2008, 2009) developed a typology to amplify the significance of the role of followers in the leadership process ( Table 12.1 ). He developed his typology as a result of a defining moment in his formative years when he became aware of the horrors of the World War II Holocaust that killed more than 6 million European Jews. Chaleff felt a moral imperative to seek answers as to why people followed German leader Adolf Hitler, a purveyor of hate and death. What could be done to prevent this from happening again? How could followers be emboldened to help leaders use their power appropriately and act to keep leaders from abusing their power?p.299Figure 12.3  LeaderFollower InteractionSOURCE: Adapted from Creating new ways of following by I. Chaleff, in R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (p. 71), 2008. Permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republished with permission of John Wiley & Sons.Rather than serving leaders, Chaleff argues that followers serve a common purpose along with leaders ( Figure 12.3 ) and that both leaders and followers work to achieve common outcomes. Chaleff states that followers need to take a more proactive role that brings it into parity with the leaders role. He sought to make followers more responsible, to change their own internal estimates of their abilities to influence others, and to help followers feel a greater sense of agency.To achieve equal influence with leaders, Chaleff emphasizes that followers need to be courageous. His approach is a prescriptive one; that is, it advocates how followers ought to behave. According to Kelley, followers need the courage toa.  assume responsibility for the common purpose,b.  support the leader and the organization,c.  constructively challenge the leader if the common purpose or integrity of group is being threatened,d.  champion the need for change when necessary, ande.  take a moral stand that is different from the leaders to prevent ethical abuses.In short, Chaleff proposes that followers should be morally strong and work to do the right thing when facing the multiplicity of challenges that leaders place upon them.Chaleff created a follower typology ( Figure 12.4 ), which is constructed using two characteristics of courageous followership: the courage to support the leader (vertical axis) and the courage to challenge the leaders behavior and policies (horizontal axis). This typology differentiates four styles of followership:p.300Figure 12.4  Chaleff Follower TypologySOURCE: Adapted from Creating new ways of following by I. Chaleff, in R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (p. 71), 2008; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republished with permission of John Wiley & Sons.1.  Resource (lower left quadrant), which exhibits low support and low challenge. This is the person who does just enough to get by.2.  Individualist (lower right quadrant), which demonstrates low support and high challenge. Often marginalized by others, the individualist speaks up and lets the leader know where she or he stands.3.  Implementer (upper left quadrant), which acts with high support and low challenge. Often valued by the leader, implementers are supportive and get the work done but, on the downside, fail to challenge the leaders goals and values.4.  Partner (upper right quadrant), which shows high support and high challenge. This style of follower takes responsibility for him- or herself and the leader and fully supports the leader, but is always willing to challenge the leader when necessary.The Kellerman TypologyKellermans (2008) typology of followers was developed from her experience as a political scientist and her observations about followers in different historical contexts. Kellerman argues that the importance of leaders tends to be overestimated because they generally have more power, authority, and influence, while the importance of followers is underestimated. From her perspective, followers are subordinates who are unleaders, by which she means they have little power, no position of authority, and no special influence.p.301Figure 12.5  Kellerman Follower TypologySOURCE: From Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders, by Barbara Kellerman, 2008, Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Kellerman designed a typology that differentiates followers in regard to a single attribute: level of engagement. She suggests a continuum ( Figure 12.5 ), which describes followers on one end as being detached and doing nothing for the leader or the groups goals and followers on the opposite end as being very dedicated and deeply involved with the leader and the groups goals. As shown in the figure, Kellermans typology identifies five levels of follower engagement and behaviors:Isolates are completely unengaged. They are detached and do not care about their leaders. Isolates who do nothing actually strengthen the influence potential of a leader. For example, when an individual feels alienated from the political system and never votes, elected officials end up having more power and freedom to exert their will.Bystanders are observers who do not participate. They are aware of the leaders intentions and actions but deliberately choose to not become involved. In a group situation, the bystander is the person who listens to the discussion but, when it is time to make a decision, disengages and declares neutrality.Participants are partially engaged individuals who are willing to take a stand on issues, either supporting or opposing the leader. For example, participants would be the employees who challenge or support the leader regarding the fairness of their companys new overtime policy.Activists feel strongly about the leader and the leaders policies and are determined to act on their own beliefs. They are change agents. For example, in 2017, activists were willing to sit in the halls of the U.S. Capitol to protest proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act.Diehards are engaged to the extreme. They are deeply committed to supporting the leader or opposing the leader. Diehards are totally dedicated to their cause, even willing to risk their lives for it. In a small-group setting, a diehard is a follower who is all-consumed with his or her own position within the group to the point of forcing the group members to do what he or she wants them to do or forcing the group process to implode. For example, there have been U.S. congresspersons willing to force the government into economic calamity by refusing to vote to raise the countrys debt ceiling in order to force their will on a particular issue, such as increased defense spending or funding for a roads project in their district.p.302What do these four typologies (i.e., Zaleznik, Kelley, Chaleff, and Kellerman) tell us about followers? What insights or conclusions are suggested by the typologies?First, these typologies provide a starting point for research. The first step in building theory is to define the phenomenon under observation, and these typologies are that first step to identifying key followership variables. Second, these typologies highlight the multitude of different ways followers have been characterized, from alienated or masochistic to activist or individualist. Third, while the typologies do not differentiate a definitive list of follower types, there are some commonalities among them. Generally, the major followership types are activeengaged, independentassertive, submissivecompliant, and supportiveconformingor, as suggested by Carsten et al. (2014), passive followers, antiauthoritarian followers, and proactive followers.Fourth, the typologies are important because they label individuals engaged in the leadership process. This labeling brings followers to the forefront and gives them more credence for their role in the leadership process. These descriptions can also assist leaders in effectively communicating with followers. By knowing that a follower adheres to a certain type of behavior, the leader can adapt her or his style to optimally relate to the role the follower is playing.Collectively, the typologies of followership provide a beginning point for theory building about followership. Building on these typologies, the next section discusses some of the first attempts to create a theory of followership.THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO FOLLOWERSHIP  What is the phenomenon of followership? Is there a theory that explains it? Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) set out to answer those questions by systematically analyzing the existing followership literature and introducing a broad theory of followership. They state that followership comprises characteristics, behaviors and processes of individuals acting in relation to leaders (p. 96). In addition, they describe followership as a relationally based process that includes how followers and leaders interact to construct leadership and its outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014, p. 99).Based on these definitions, Uhl-Bien et al. proposed a formal theory of followership. They first identified the constructs (i.e., components or attributes) and variables that comprise the process of followership as shown in Table 12.2 .p.303Table 12.2  Theoretical Constructs and Variables of FollowershipSOURCE: From Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda, by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.The constructs listed in Table 12.2 are a first attempt to differentiate the major components of followership. Followership characteristics refer to the attributes of followers, such as the followers traits (e.g., confidence), motivations, and the way an individual perceives what it means to be a follower. Leader characteristics refer to the attributes of the leader, such as the leaders power and/or willingness to empower others, the leaders perceptions of followers, and the leaders affect (i.e., the leaders positive or negative feelings toward followers). Followership behaviors are the behaviors of individuals who are in the follower rolethat is, the extent to which they obey, defer, or resist the leader. Leadership behaviors are the behaviors of the individuals in the leadership role, such as how the leader influences followers to respond. Finally, followership outcomes are the results that occur based on the followership process. The outcomes can influence the individual follower, the leader, the relationship between the leader and the follower, and the leadership process. For example, how a leader reacts to a follower, whether the follower receives positive or negative reinforcement from a leader, and whether a follower advances the organizational goals all contribute to followership outcomes.To explain the possible relationships between the variables and constructs identified in Table 12.2 , the authors proposed two theoretical frameworks: reversing the lens ( Figure 12.6 ) and the leadership co-created process ( Figure 12.7 ).Reversing the LensReversing the lens is an approach to followership that addresses followers in a manner opposite of the way they have been studied in most prior leadership research. Rather than focusing on how followers are affected by leaders, it focuses on how followers affect leaders and organizational outcomes. Reversing the lens emphasizes that followers can be change agents. As illustrated in Figure 12.6 , this approach addresses (1) the impact of followers characteristics on followers behaviors, (2) the impact of followers behaviors on leaders perceptions and behavior and the impact of the leaders perceptions and behavior on followers behaviors, and (3) the impact of both followers and leaders on followership outcomes.p.304Figure 12.6  Reversing the LensSOURCE: From Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda, by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.A hypothetical example of how the reversing the lens framework might work is the research a team is doing on employees and followership in a small, nonprofit organization. In this situation, researchers might be interested in how followers personality traits (e.g., introversionextraversion, dogmatism) relate to how they act at workthat is, their style and work behavior. Researchers might also examine how employees behavior affects their supervisors leadership behavior or how the followerleader relationship affects organizational outcomes. These are just a sample of the research questions that could be addressed. However, notice that the overriding purpose and theme of the study is the impact of followers on the followership process.The Leadership Co-Created ProcessA second theoretical approach, the leadership co-created process, is shown in Figure 12.7 . The name of this approach almost seems like a misnomer because it implies that it is about leadership rather than followership. However, that is not the case. The leadership co-created process framework conceptualizes followership as a give-and-take process where one individuals following behaviors interact with another individuals leading behaviors to create leadership and its resulting outcomes. This approach does not frame followership as role-based or as a lower rung on a hierarchical ladder; rather, it highlights how leadership is co-created through the combined act of leading and following.    SAGE Journal ArticlesLeader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behaviorCLICK TO SHOWp.305Figure 12.7  The Leadership Co-Created ProcessSOURCE: From Followership Theory: A Review and Research Agenda, by M. Uhl-Bien, R. R. Riggio, R. B. Lowe, and M. K. Carsten, The Leadership Quarterly, 25, p. 98. Copyright 2014 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.Leading behaviors are influence attemptsthat is, using power to have an impact on another. Following behaviors, on the other hand, involve granting power to another, complying, or challenging. Figure 12.7 illustrates that (1) followers and leaders have a mutual influence on each other; (2) leadership occurs as a result of their interaction (i.e., their leading and following); and (3) this resulting process affects outcomes.The following example illustrates what followership would entail using the leadership co-created process framework in Figure 12.7 . Terry Smith is a seasoned high school football coach who paints houses in the summer to supplement his income. One summer, Coach Smith invited one of his players, Jason Long, to work with him as a painter. Coach Smith and Jason worked well together, sharing painting responsibilities, and often finding innovative ways to accomplish their painting jobs more efficiently.When the summer was over and football practice resumed, however, Coach Smith and Jason ran into problems. At practice, Jason called Coach Smith by his first name, joking with him about their painting jobs, and behaving as a peer rather than a team member. Although Coach Smith liked being on a first-name basis with Jason in the summer, he was concerned that other team members would also start calling him by his first name and he would lose their respect of him as the coach. Jason, on the other hand, felt good about his relationship with Coach Smith and the influence he had with him. He did not want to lose this, which would happen if he was forced to resume calling him Coach Smith, like the rest of the players.p.306To resolve their issues, Coach Smith and Jason discussed how they would address one another in a series of interactions and decided it was best for Jason to call Terry Coach Smith during the academic year to facilitate a positive working relationship between the coach and all of the team members.In this example, the leadership co-created process framework can be seen in the different leading and following moves Terry and Jason made. For example, when Coach Smith asked Jason to join him to paint, he was asserting friendly influence to which Jason accepted by agreeing to work with Terry. When Jason suggested more efficient methods of painting, Terry accepted the influence attempt and deferred to Jasons ideas. By calling each other by their first names while working together, both Jason and Terry assumed that leadership was being shared.But, when football practice started in the fall and Jason continued to call Terry by his first name instead of Coach Smith, it was apparent that for Coach Smith to retain his influence with the other players, Jason and Terry needed to reach an agreeable decision on who was in charge and who was to follow. Together they decided what leadership (i.e., coaching) and followership meant in the different contexts. The result was better football practices because all players received what they perceived as equal treatment. In this situation, researchers studying followership would focus on the way Terrys and Jasons leading and following behaviors resulted in leadership that in turn resulted in effective or ineffective outcomes.Because followership research is in the initial stages of development, the two frameworksreversing the lens and the leadership co-created processset forth by Uhl-Bien and her colleagues (2014) are initial attempts to create a theory of followership. The frameworks provide a way to conceptualize followership that is useful to researchers in generating further studies to explore the intricacies of followership such as the work we discuss in the next section.New Perspectives on FollowershipIn an attempt to advance the study of followership and present followership in a positive light, Carsten et al. (2014) suggest several practical perspectives on followership. These perspectives are intended to help organizations understand followers and to help individuals understand the positive facets of being a follower.p.307Perspective 1: Followers Get the Job DoneIn the past, there has been what Meindl (1995) called a romance of leadership, which emphasized the importance of leaders and leadership to the functioning of groups and organizations. There has been less recognition of the importance of followers to getting the job done. When viewed from a less leader-centric perspective, leadership can be seen as something that occurs among followers as a result of how they interpret leadership. This places less emphasis on the personality of the leader and more on followers reactions to the leader. It shifts attention away from leaders as the causal agents of organizational change and focuses on how the behavior of followers affects organizational outcomes. Clearly, followers carry out the mission of the group and the organization; in short, they do the work. They are central to the life of the organization. Going forward, more attention needs to be given to the personalities, cognitive abilities, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving abilities of followers (Carsten et al., 2014).Perspective 2: Followers Work in the Best Interest of the Organizations MissionAlthough not true of all followers, proactive followers are committed to achieving the goals of the group or organization to which they belong. Rather than being passive and blindly obedient to the wishes of the leader, these followers report asserting themselves in ways that are in alignment with the goals of the organization. They put the organizations goals ahead of the leaders goals. The advantage of proactive followers is that they guard against leaders who act in self-serving or unethical ways. For example, if the president of the United States asked a cabinet member to do something that would personally benefit only the president, the cabinet member might refuse, arguing that what she was asked to do was not in the best interests of the country, which she ultimately serves. Followers act as a check and balance on a leaders power, protecting the organization against abuse of this power. Proactive followers keep the organization front and center.Perspective 3: Followers Challenge LeadersAs illustrated in the typologies outlined earlier in the chapter, being engaged, active, and challenging are identifying characteristics of effective followers. But followers who challenge the leader can also help to make an organization run more effectively and successfully. When followers have knowledge about a process or procedure of which the leader is unaware, the followers become a strong asset both to the leader and to the organization. They become extra eyes to make sure the leader sees the organization from another angle. In addition, followers who are proactive and challenge the leader can keep the leader in sync with the overall mission of the organization.p.308To illustrate this point, consider what happened between Amy Malley, an upper-level college student, and her professor, Dr. Orville. After Dr. Orville posted the final grades for a capstone course that he taught, Amy came to see him in his office.I saw my posted grade, and I want you to know it is wrong, she said. I know for certain I did very well on the exam and my grade for the course should be an A, but your posting indicates I got a B. Something is wrong with your calculations or the key for the exam.Dr. Orville, who had taught for 25 years and never made an error in a students grade, began to shrug off Amys assertions and tell her she was wrong. She persisted and challenged Dr. Orville because she was confident that her exam grade was incorrect. After much discussion, Dr. Orville offered to let Amy see her exam and the scoring key. To his surprise, her answers were correct, but he had marked them wrong. Upon looking further into the matter, Dr. Orville became aware that he had wrongly scored all the students exams because he had used the incorrect scoring key. Recognizing his error, Dr. Orville immediately changed Amys grade and recalculated the grades for the rest of the class. In this example, Amys challenging of Dr. Orvilles leadership resulted in positive outcomes for all the students and also for the leader.Perspective 4: Followers Support the LeaderIn addition to challenging a leader, it is equally important for followers to support the leader. To advance an organizations mission, it is valuable for leaders when followers validate and affirm the leaders intentions. Consider what happens in a small-group setting when an individual member attempts to make a point or advance an idea. If someone in the group supports the individual, the group members idea is heard and gains traction in the group, as does the group member. However, if an individual member does not receive support from other group members, the individual tends to feel disconfirmed and questions his or her role in the group.    Licensed VideoPresident Trumps Followers in CongressFor a leader, having a follower who supports you is like having a lieutenant. The lieutenant affirms the leaders ideas to others and in so doing gives the leaders ideas validity. This support strengthens a leaders position in the group and helps to advance the leaders goals. We all need lieutenants, but leaders especially need lieutenants. Support from others is essential to advancing ideas with others. An example of how not having this support can affect outcomes can be seen at the national level, when U.S. president Donald Trump wanted to advance a new national health care policy but could not muster enough support in his own party (the Republicans) to get the measure to pass in Congress. In this case, not having the support of others in a group is detrimental to a leader.p.309Perspective 5: Followers Learn From LeadersA serendipitous outcome of being a follower is that in the process of following you learn about leading. Followership gives individuals the opportunity to view leadership from a position unencumbered from the burdens and responsibilities of being the leader. Followers get to observe what does or does not work for a leader; they can learn which leadership approaches or methods are effective or ineffective and apply this learning if they become leaders.Consider the training that individuals undergo to become teachers. In most education programs, becoming certified as a teacher requires students to do student teaching or supervised teaching, spending a semester working with a certified teacher in a classroom where actual teaching and learning are taking place. The student gets a chance to observe what teachers do and what teaching requires without the full responsibility of being in charge of the students and the educational outcomes. These student teachers have the opportunity to explore their own competencies and hone their teaching skills. From a followership perspective, the student is playing the following role but in the process learns the leadership role.Followership and Destructive LeadersThus far in this chapter, we have focused on effective rather than ineffective followership. For example, we have discussed how followers provide valuable confirmation to leaders and help them accomplish organizational goals. But there is another side to followership in which followers can play unproductive, and even harmful, roles.For example, when followers are passive or submissive, their inaction can contribute to unfettered leadership and unintentionally support toxic leaders. Furthermore, followers can create contexts that are unhealthy and make it possible for leaders who are not interested in the common good to thrive. When followers act in ways that contribute to the power of destructive leaders and their goals, it can have a debilitating impact on not just the group or organization they serve, but the followers as well.In The Allure of Toxic Leaders (2005), Jean Lipman-Blumen explored toxic leadership from the perspective of followership. Toxic, or harmful, leaders are leaders who have dysfunctional personal characteristics and engage in numerous destructive behaviors. Yet, people follow them. There are many examples of such leaders in world history: Adolf Hitler, whose leadership led to the extermination of 6 million Jews in Europe; former Serbian and Yugoslavic president Slobodan Milosevic, who ordered the genocide of thousands of Albanians and forced deportation of nearly a million; Enron Corporations Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay, whose conspiracy and fraud cost nearly 20,000 people their jobs and future retirement earnings.p.310Lipman-Blumen seeks to answer this question: Why do people follow bad leaders? She identifies a series of psychological factors on the part of followers that contribute to harmful leadership and explains why followers can be compliant even to highly destructive leaders. She also examines how some followers become henchmen for toxic leaders, helping and supporting the toxic leader in enacting the leaders destructive agenda.Her thesis is that unhealthy followership occurs as a result of peoples needs to find safety, feel unique, and be included in community, and her work is useful for developing an understanding of why some followership is negative and has counterproductive outcomes.Among the psychological factors of followers that can foster destructive leadership identified by Lipman-Blumen are our need for reassuring authority figures; our need for security and certainty; our need to feel chosen or special; our need for membership in the human community; our fear of ostracism, isolation, and social death; and our fear of powerlessness to challenge a bad leader.1. Our Need for Reassuring Authority FiguresAs far back as psychoanalyst Sigmund Freuds research in the early 1900s, much has been written about how people deal with authority. When we are very young, we depend on our parents to guide and protect us; but as we mature, we learn to be our own compass/authority/person and make decisions without being dependent on others. However, even as adults, some people still have a high need for authority figures. They want their leaders to provide guidance and protection like their parents used to. This need can open the door for leaders who use followers for their own ends. When followers needs for a reassuring authority figure are extremely strong, it makes them vulnerable to following abusive and destructive leaders. For example, a middle school student who plays an instrument may practice considerably more than is necessary just to obtain assurance from the teacher that he is good and worthwhile. In this example, the teacher could take advantage of this students need for validation by having the student do more than is commonly required.2. Our Need for Security and CertaintyThe freedom many people experience when achieving adulthood can bring uncertainty and disruption to their lives. Psychologists who study peoples belief systems have found that people have a need for consistencyto keep their beliefs and attitudes balanced. Our drive for certainty means we struggle in contexts where things are disrupted and we do not feel in charge of events. This uncertainty and insecurity creates stress from which we seek to find relief. It is in contexts like these that followers are susceptible to the lure of unethical leaders who have power. For example, think about migrant workers who come from Mexico to the United States to work on a large produce farm. The farmer they work for has promised good wages and a place to live. But upon arriving at the farm, the workers find they are required to work in the fields for up to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and the housing provided is substandard. In addition, the farmer charges the workers a high rent for the housing, plus additional fees for providing drinking water in the fields. The workers, who are undocumented immigrants, put up with these conditions because they need the meager income they make and they know that if they were to complain, the farmer could report the workers to immigration authorities and they would be deported. The fragile security of working for the farmer outweighs the uncertainty of what their impoverished lives in Mexico would bring.p.3113. Our Need to Feel Chosen or SpecialTo explain the need to feel chosen, Lipman-Blumen points to historic religious leaders, such as Moses and John Calvin, who emphasized to their people that there were chosen ones among them who were special and singled out by a higher authority. Being a part of the chosen means one has truth on ones side and those who are the others do not. Being chosen means protecting ones uniqueness and distinguishing oneself from others. While being chosen provides some comfort and even a feeling of immortality, it can motivate one to do battle with others. Being part of the chosen and feeling that one is right gives a sense of security to followers, but it does so at the expense of appreciating the humanity of the other.Consider, for example, those who adhere to a White supremacist ideology based on the belief that White people are chosen and superior to all other races and should have control over people of those other races. White supremacists oppose people of color and those members of non-Christian religions who they believe threaten the purity of the White race. Followers of White supremacys belief in being somehow special reinforces their behaviors, which often involve treating others inhumanely.4. Our Need for Membership in the Human CommunityPsychologist William Schutz (1958) argued that one of humans strongest interpersonal needs is to know whether they belong to the group. Are we in or out? Are we included with others and acknowledged as a member of the community or not?p.312When groups and organizations function positively, it is healthy for all group members, not detrimental. Group members feel accepted, comfortable, valued, and inspirited. But peoples need to be members of the group can be exploited by destructive leaders who take advantage of individuals who are highly dependent on the group for their own personal meaning and purpose. Highly dependent followers may be willing to give up their individuality, beliefs, and integrity just to make sure they can retain their social belonging (Lipman-Blumen, 2005).Consider the number of disturbing hazing incidents at fraternities or other groups on college campuses that have resulted in the injuries and deaths of new members (pledges) who are willing to endure dangerous rituals because of their high need to belong to the group. Followers can become vulnerable to bad leadership when they are unable to moderate their own personal need for belonging.5. Our Fear of Ostracism, Isolation, and Social DeathWhen an individual becomes a part of and acquires full membership to a group, the individual typically learns and begins to practice the norms of the group. Surrounded by the group, followers become comfortable with the groups values, mission, and beliefs. In addition, followers begin to like being a group member and doing what group members do and find the inclusion and community of the group comforting.But being a part of the group also has a downside. This inclusion and community makes it difficult for individuals to break out of the group or dissent if the groups mission or values run counter to their own. Pressure to conform to the group makes it challenging for individuals to disagree with the group or try to get the group to change. When followers act against group norms or bring attention to the negative aspects of what the group is doing (e.g., whistle-blowers), they run a high risk of becoming ostracized and isolated from the group.For example, imagine being in a group of friends, and several members of your group have started to make fun of a young man in your class who is autistic and often acts awkwardly in social situations. You dislike how they treat this young man and consider their behavior to be bullying. Do you speak up and tell them to stop, knowing that you might be ostracized by the rest of the group? Or do you keep quiet and maintain your relationships with your friends? Being an ethical follower carries with it the burden of acting out your individual values even when it can mean social death.6. Our Fear of Powerlessness to Challenge a Bad LeaderFinally, followers may unintentionally enable destructive leaders because they feel helpless to change them. Once a part of a group, followers often feel pressure to conform to the norms of the group. They find that it is not easy to challenge the leader or go against the leaders plans for the group. Even when a leader acts inappropriately or treats others in harmful ways, it is hard for followers to muster the courage to address the leaders behavior. Groups provide security for followers, and the threat of losing this security can make it scary to challenge authority figures. To speak truth to power is a brave act, and followers often feel impotent to express themselves in the face of authority. Although being an accepted follower in a group carries with it many benefits, it does not always promote personal agency. After all, who would support you if you challenged the leader? For example, imagine what it would be like to be a homosexual employee in an organization whose leadership is openly prejudiced against LGBT rights. Would you be likely to express disapproval of the leadership and its policies?p.313Table 12.3  Psychological Factors and Dysfunctional LeadershipSOURCE: Based on The Allure of Toxic Leaders by J. Lipman-Blumen, 2005, p. 29; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Republished with permission of Oxford University Press.Table 12.3 provides a summary of the six psychological needs of followers that foster destructive leadership. When followers attempt to fulfill these needs, it can create contexts where unethical and destructive leaders are allowed to thrive.HOW DOES FOLLOWERSHIP WORK? Unlike established leadership theories such as leadermember exchange theory ( Chapter 7 ) or transformational leadership ( Chapter 8 ) for which there are formulated models, assumptions, and theorems, followership is an area of study still in its infancy. However, it does provide several takeaways that have valuable implications for practicing followership.First, simply discussing followership forces us to elevate its importance and the value of followers. For many years, the role of leaders in the leadership process has been esteemed far above that of followers, as evidenced by the thousands of research studies that exist on leaders and leadership approaches and the very few that have been done on followership. Leadership has been idealized as a central component of organizational behavior. But by focusing on followership, we are forced to engage in a new way of thinking about those who do the work of leadership and to explore the merits of the people who do the work of followership. Leadership does not exist in a vacuum; it needs followers to be operationalized. Followership research highlights the essential role that followers fulfill in every aspect of organizational accomplishments. Why should we focus on followership? Because it is just as important as leadership.p.314Second, followership is about how individuals accept the influence of others to reach a common goal. It describes the characteristics and actions of people who have less power than the leader yet are critical components in the leadership process. The typologies of follower behaviors discussed in this chapter provide a criterion of what followers typically do in different situations when they are being influenced by a leader. Do they help the leader, or do they fight the leader? Do they make the organization run better or worse? Categorizations of followers are beneficial because they help us understand the way people act when occupying a follower role. To know that a person is a follower is useful, but to know if that follower is a dependent-passive follower or a proactive-antiauthoritarian follower is far more valuable. These categories provide information about how followers act and how a leader can respond accordingly. It also helps leaders know followers attitudes toward work and the organization and how to best communicate with these followers.Third, followership research provides a means of understanding why harmful leadership occurs and sometimes goes unrestrained. Followers are interdependent with leaders in the leadership processeach affects and is affected by the other. When leaders are abusive or unethical, it affects followers. But followers often feel restrained to respond. While they may want to respond to destructive leaders, followers will often become passive and inactive instead. This occurs because they fear losing the security provided by their membership in the group. By understanding their own feelings of powerlessness and need for security and community, followers can more easily identify and confront destructive leaders.STRENGTHS In this chapter, we trace the development of followership and how it has been conceptualized by researchers over the past 50 years. This research has several strengths.First, it gives recognition to followership as an integral part of the leadership equation. While some earlier theories of leadership (e.g., implicit leadership theory [Lord & Maher, 1991] and social identity theory [Tajfel & Turner, 1986]) recognize followers as an element in the leadership process, the most recent literature suggests an approach to followership that elevates it considerably and gives it equal footing with leadership. This emphasis broadens our purview of leadership and suggests that followership willand shouldreceive far more attention by researchers and practitioners in the future.p.315Second, a focus on followership forces a whole new way for people to think about leadership. While there are textbooks on leadership, such as Hughes, Ginnett, and Curphys Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (2014), that give special attention to followership, current followership research and literature go further and challenge us to take leadership off its pedestal and replace it with followership. It forces us to focus on followers rather than leaders. It looks to answer questions like these: What makes effective followership? How do followers affect group processes and influence goal accomplishment? How do followers influence leaders? And, how can we teach people to become capable followers?In addition, the new followership literature invites us to view leadership as a co-constructed process in which followers and leaders share equally. Rather than focusing on the individuals with the power, our thinking needs to shift to embracing the individuals without the power and the relationship these people make with the leader. The study of followership reminds us that leadership is incomplete and cannot be understood without focusing on and understanding the role and dimensions of followers.Third, although in its infancy, followership research provides a set of basic prescriptions for what a follower should or should not do to be an effective follower. These prescriptions provide a general blueprint of the types of behaviors that create effective followership. For example, effective followers balance their need for community with their need for self. They act in the best interests of the organization and challenge the leader when the leaders agenda is self-serving or unethical. Effective followers do not act antiauthoritarian, but collaborate to get the job done. Furthermore, they recognize powerlessness in themselves but do not let this keep them from challenging the leader when necessary. While the followership research has not yet produced elegant theories that explain the intricacies of how followership works, it does provide a set of ideas that have strong practical applications.CRITICISMS In addition to its strengths, the study of followership has certain limitations.First, little methodical research has been conducted on the process of followership. The absence of such research makes it difficult to concretely conceptualize the nature of followership including what defines followers and how followers contribute to the leadership process. Without precise theories and models of followership, there can be no clear set of principles or practices about how followership works and the role it plays in groups, organizations, and the community.p.316Second, the current followership literature is primarily personal observations and anecdotal. For example, the typologies of followership styles discussed earlier in the chapter (i.e., Zaleznik, Kelley, Chaleff, and Kellerman) are useful category systems to differentiate between followers styles, but the derivation of the typologies is simply the conjectures and hypotheses of a single author. While such descriptive research, including designing different typologies, is a traditional process in the initial phase of theory development, the value and power of our thinking on followership will not advance until followership is fully conceptualized and tested.Third, the leader-centric orientation that exists in the world may be too ingrained for followership to blossom. For followership to succeed, it will need both leaders and followers to be strong in their roles; followers must serve the purpose of teaching the leader as well as learning from the leader (Chaleff, 1995). And in a leader-centric world, where followerships primary purpose is seen only as important to make leaders leaders (you cant be a leader if no one is following), this evolution may take a very long time to come about.APPLICATION Follow the leader is an expression familiar to many. Whether it was a way for a teacher to avoid confusion and keep peace with her charges or a game played on the playground, follow the leader means people need to get in line behind the designated leader and do what the leader tells them to do. Following the leader is about the process of accepting the leaders authority and influence. More importantly, it is about deciding how to respond to what the leader says.Followership research is about just that: understanding how and why followers respond to leaders. There are several applications of followership research:First and foremost, the research underscores the importance of followershipit is as important as leadership. This chapter helps us understand the critical and complex role followers play in regard to leaders. It differentiates common roles followers play, from very active and positive to very inactive and negative. When applied to real-life leadership situations, knowledge about followers and their roles and behaviors expands our understanding of the major components that contribute to group and organizational success.p.317In addition, the study of followership has implications for organizational training and development. Although followership is not currently recognized as a top topic in the training and development field, it is not difficult to see how workshops and training in followership could become very important to organizations in the near future. Learning about followership could help followers understand themselves, how they function, and how they can best contribute to the goals of the group or organization of which they are a member. Clearly, there is demonstrable value in training programs on such topics as Being an Effective Follower, Dealing With Destructive Bosses, or Accepting the Challenges of Followership. With the increased attention being given to followership research, it is expected that an increase in training programs on followership will result as well.Furthermore, the information described in this chapter can help leaders to understand followers and how to most effectively work with them. So much of current leadership literature is about the leader and the leaders behavior; however, this chapter shifts the attention to the follower and why followers act the way they do. Leaders can use this followership information to adjust their style to the needs of followers. For example, if the leader finds that a follower is aggressive and disruptive, the information in this chapter suggests that the follower may have authority issues and is acting out because of his or her own needs for security. Or, some followers may be quiet and compliant, suggesting they need leadership that assures them that they are a part of the group and encourages them to participate more in the group process. Leaders have tried for years to treat followers as individuals with unique needs, but this chapter goes further and provides leaders with cues for action that are derived directly from the followership literature.CASE STUDIES The following three case studies (Cases 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3) present followership in three different contexts. The first case, Bluebird Care, describes a home health care agency and the unique ways followers contribute to the work of the agency. The second case, Olympic Rowers, discusses a renowned rowing team and the way the followers worked together to create cohesiveness and a magical outcome. The last case, Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal, examines the role of followership in the circumstances that brought down a well-regarded collegiate football program and the universitys leadership. At the end of each case, there are questions that will help you to analyze the case utilizing the principles of followership discussed in the chapter.p.318CASE  12.1Bluebird CareRobin Martin started Bluebird Care, an in-home health care agency, 20 years ago with a staff of 2 and 5 clients. The agency has grown to a staff of 25 serving 50 clients.Robin started in elder care as an aide at a reputable assisted living facility. She liked caring for patients and was good at it. When she began running Bluebird Care, Robin knew all her staff members and their clients. But as the demand for in-home health care has increased, Bluebird Care has grown as wellhiring more staff and expanding its service area. For Robin, this means less time with the companys clients and more time managing her growing agency. She admits she feels as if she is losing her connections with her clients and staff.When asked to describe a time when the agency was really running smoothly, Robin talks about when Bluebird Care had just 10 employees. This was a good time for us. Everyone did what they were assigned and did not complain. No one called in sick; they were very dependable. But, it was different then because we all lived in the same area and I would see each of our employees every week. On Tuesdays they had to hand in their time sheets, and every other Thursday they stopped to pick up their paycheck. I enjoyed this.Because the agencys service area is much larger now, encompassing many of the citys suburbs, Robin seldom sees her employees. Time sheets are emailed in by employees, and paychecks are sent through the mail or directly deposited into employees bank accounts. Robin says, Because they never see us, the staff feels like they can do what they want, and management has nothing to say about it. Its not the same as when we were smaller.There is a core of agency staff that Robin does interact with nearly every day. Terry, a staff member who has been with Robin since the beginning, is Robins go-to person. I trust her, Robin says. When she says, Robinwe need to do it this way, I do what she says. She is always right. Terry is very positive and promotive of the agency and complimentary of Robin. When other staff members challenge the rules or procedures of the agency, Terry is the person to whom Robin goes to for advice. But, Terry also challenges Robin to make Bluebird Care the best agency it can be.Terry is a direct contrast to Belinda, another employee. A five-year staff member, Belinda is dogmatic and doesnt like change, yet frequently challenges Robin and the rules of the agency. Robin describes Belinda as a bully and not a team player. For example, Belinda and Robin had a conflict about a rule in the agencys procedural manual that requires staff to work every other weekend. Belinda argued that it was unfair to force staff members to work every other weekend and that other similar agencies dont have such policies. To prove her point, Belinda obtained a competing agencys manual that supported her position and showed it to Robin.p.319Robin, who does not like confrontation, was frustrated by Belindas aggressive conflict style. Robin brought up the issue about weekends with Terry, and Terry supported her and the way the policy was written. In the end, Belinda did not get the policy changed, but both Belinda and Robin are sure there will be more conflicts to come.Two other key staff members are Robins son, Caleb, who hires and trains most of the employees, and her son-in-law, James, who answers the phone and does scheduling. Robin says as a manager James does his work in a quiet, respectful manner and seldom causes problems. In addition to handling all the hiring and training, Robin relies on Caleb to troubleshoot issues regarding client services. For both James and Caleb, the job can become stressful because it is their phones that ring when a staff member doesnt show up to a clients for work and they have to find someone to fill in.Caleb also says he is working hard to instill a sense of cohesiveness among the agencys far-flung staff and to reduce turnover with their millennial-age staff members. Caleb say