The Power Of Followership Robert Kelley Pdf Converter

Kelley Model Of Followership Explained
Rethinking Followership By Robert Kelley
Robert Kelley Fantasy

The activation of followership could be a remark of successful leadership. Leaders must begin to understand the types of people they lead. Team members identify themselves as a unit and practically plan organizational development and progress to achieve similar strategies and objectives. The development of a leader-member exchange is based on. The Power Of Followership Robert Kelley Pdf Download. The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow. Kelley, Hardcover. On followership, states that an article by Robert Kelley in 1988 in the Harv ard Business Rev iew was the path-breaking work recognizing the important role of followership in the success of an organization. Kelley, In Praise ofFollowers, HARV.

We are convinced that corporations succeed or fail, compete or crumble, on the basis of how well they are led. So we study great leaders of the past and present and spend vast quantities of time and money looking for leaders to hire and trying to cultivate leadership in the employees we already have.

I have no argument with this enthusiasm. Leaders matter greatly. But in searching so zealously for better leaders we tend to lose sight of the people these leaders will lead. Without his armies, after all, Napoleon was just a man with grandiose ambitions. Organizations stand or fall partly on the basis of how well their leaders lead, but partly also on the basis of how well their followers follow.

In 1987, declining profitability and intensified competition for corporate clients forced a large commercial bank on the east coast to reorganize its operations and cut its work force. Its most seasoned managers had to spend most of their time in the field working with corporate customers. Time and energies were stretched so thin that one department head decided he had no choice but to delegate the responsibility for reorganization to his staff people, who had recently had training in self-management.

Despite grave doubts, the department head set them up as a unit without a leader, responsible to one another and to the bank as a whole for writing their own job descriptions, designing a training program, determining criteria for performance evaluations, planning for operational needs, and helping to achieve overall organizational objectives.

They pulled it off. The bank’s officers were delighted and frankly amazed that rank-and-file employees could assume so much responsibility so successfully. In fact, the department’s capacity to control and direct itself virtually without leadership saved the organization months of turmoil, and as the bank struggled to remain a major player in its region, valuable management time was freed up to put out other fires.

What was it these singular employees did? Given a goal and parameters, they went where most departments could only have gone under the hands-on guidance of an effective leader. But these employees accepted the delegation of authority and went there alone. They thought for themselves, sharpened their skills, focused their efforts, put on a fine display of grit and spunk and self-control. They followed effectively.

To encourage this kind of effective following in other organizations, we need to understand the nature of the follower’s role. To cultivate good followers, we need to understand the human qualities that allow effective followership to occur.

The Role of Follower

Bosses are not necessarily good leaders; subordinates are not necessarily effective followers. Many bosses couldn’t lead a horse to water. Many subordinates couldn’t follow a parade. Some people avoid either role. Others accept the role thrust upon them and perform it badly.

At different points in their careers, even at different times of the working day, most managers play both roles, though seldom equally well. After all, the leadership role has the glamour and attention. We take courses to learn it, and when we play it well we get applause and recognition. But the reality is that most of us are more often followers than leaders. Even when we have subordinates, we still have bosses. For every committee we chair, we sit as a member on several others.

So followership dominates our lives and organizations, but not our thinking, because our preoccupation with leadership keeps us from considering the nature and the importance of the follower.

What distinguishes an effective from an ineffective follower is enthusiastic, intelligent, and self-reliant participation—without star billing—in the pursuit of an organizational goal. Effective followers differ in their motivations for following and in their perceptions of the role. Some choose followership as their primary role at work and serve as team players who take satisfaction in helping to further a cause, an idea, a product, a service, or, more rarely, a person. Others are leaders in some situations but choose the follower role in a particular context. Both these groups view the role of follower as legitimate, inherently valuable, even virtuous.

Some potentially effective followers derive motivation from ambition. By proving themselves in the follower’s role, they hope to win the confidence of peers and superiors and move up the corporate ladder. These people do not see followership as attractive in itself. All the same, they can become good followers if they accept the value of learning the role, studying leaders from a subordinate’s perspective, and polishing the followership skills that will always stand them in good stead.

Understanding motivations and perceptions is not enough, however. Since followers with different motivations can perform equally well, I examined the behavior that leads to effective and less effective following among people committed to the organization and came up with two underlying behavioral dimensions that help to explain the difference.

One dimension measures to what degree followers exercise independent, critical thinking. The other ranks them on a passive/active scale. The resulting diagram identifies five followership patterns.

Some Followers Are More Effective

Sheep are passive and uncritical, lacking in initiative and sense of responsibility. They perform the tasks given them and stop. Yes People are a livelier but equally unenterprising group. Dependent on a leader for inspiration, they can be aggressively deferential, even servile. Bosses weak in judgment and self-confidence tend to like them and to form alliances with them that can stultify the organization.

Alienated Followers are critical and independent in their thinking but passive in carrying out their role. Somehow, sometime, something turned them off. Often cynical, they tend to sink gradually into disgruntled acquiescence, seldom openly opposing a leader’s efforts. In the very center of the diagram we have Survivors, who perpetually sample the wind and live by the slogan “better safe than sorry.” They are adept at surviving change.

In the upper right-hand corner, finally, we have Effective Followers, who think for themselves and carry out their duties and assignments with energy and assertiveness. Because they are risk takers, self-starters, and independent problem solvers, they get consistently high ratings from peers and many superiors. Followership of this kind can be a positive and acceptable choice for parts or all of our lives—a source of pride and fulfillment.

Effective followers are well-balanced and responsible adults who can succeed without strong leadership. Many followers believe they offer as much value to the organization as leaders do, especially in project or task-force situations. In an organization of effective followers, a leader tends to be more an overseer of change and progress than a hero. As organizational structures flatten, the quality of those who follow will become more and more important. As Chester I. Barnard wrote 50 years ago in The Functions of the Executive, “The decision as to whether an order has authority or not lies with the person to whom it is addressed, and does not reside in ‘persons of authority’ or those who issue orders.”

The Qualities of Followers

Effective followers share a number of essential qualities:

1. They manage themselves well.

2. They are committed to the organization and to a purpose, principle, or person outside themselves.

3. They build their competence and focus their efforts for maximum impact.

4. They are courageous, honest, and credible.

Self-Management. Paradoxically, the key to being an effective follower is the ability to think for oneself—to exercise control and independence and to work without close supervision. Good followers are people to whom a leader can safely delegate responsibility, people who anticipate needs at their own level of competence and authority.

Another aspect of this paradox is that effective followers see themselves—except in terms of line responsibility—as the equals of the leaders they follow. They are more apt to openly and unapologetically disagree with leadership and less likely to be intimidated by hierarchy and organizational structure. At the same time, they can see that the people they follow are, in turn, following the lead of others, and they try to appreciate the goals and needs of the team and the organization. Ineffective followers, on the other hand, buy into the hierarchy and, seeing themselves as subservient, vacillate between despair over their seeming powerlessness and attempts to manipulate leaders for their own purposes. Either their fear of powerlessness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy—for themselves and often for their work units as well—or their resentment leads them to undermine the team’s goals.

Self-managed followers give their organizations a significant cost advantage because they eliminate much of the need for elaborate supervisory control systems that, in any case, often lower morale. In 1985, a large midwestern bank redesigned its personnel selection system to attract self-managed workers. Those conducting interviews began to look for particular types of experience and capacities—initiative, teamwork, independent thinking of all kinds—and the bank revamped its orientation program to emphasize self-management. At the executive level, role playing was introduced into the interview process: how you disagree with your boss, how you prioritize your in-basket after a vacation. In the three years since, employee turnover has dropped dramatically, the need for supervisors has decreased, and administrative costs have gone down.

Of course not all leaders and managers like having self-managing subordinates. Some would rather have sheep or yes people. The best that good followers can do in this situation is to protect themselves with a little career self-management—that is, to stay attractive in the marketplace. The qualities that make a good follower are too much in demand to go begging for long.

Commitment. Effective followers are committed to something—a cause, a product, an organization, an idea—in addition to the care of their own lives and careers. Some leaders misinterpret this commitment. Seeing their authority acknowledged, they mistake loyalty to a goal for loyalty to themselves. But the fact is that many effective followers see leaders merely as coadventurers on a worthy crusade, and if they suspect their leader of flagging commitment or conflicting motives they may just withdraw their support, either by changing jobs or by contriving to change leaders.

Self-confident followers see colleagues as allies and leaders as equals.

The opportunities and the dangers posed by this kind of commitment are not hard to see. On the one hand, commitment is contagious. Most people like working with colleagues whose hearts are in their work. Morale stays high. Workers who begin to wander from their purpose are jostled back into line. Projects stay on track and on time. In addition, an appreciation of commitment and the way it works can give managers an extra tool with which to understand and channel the energies and loyalties of their subordinates.

On the other hand, followers who are strongly committed to goals not consistent with the goals of their companies can produce destructive results. Leaders having such followers can even lose control of their organizations.

A scientist at a computer company cared deeply about making computer technology available to the masses, and her work was outstanding. Since her goal was in line with the company’s goals, she had few problems with top management. Yet she saw her department leaders essentially as facilitators of her dream, and when managers worked at cross-purposes to that vision, she exercised all of her considerable political skills to their detriment. Her immediate supervisors saw her as a thorn in the side, but she was quite effective in furthering her cause because she saw eye to eye with company leaders. But what if her vision and the company’s vision had differed?

Effective followers temper their loyalties to satisfy organizational needs—or they find new organizations. Effective leaders know how to channel the energies of strong commitment in ways that will satisfy corporate goals as well as a follower’s personal needs.

Competence and Focus. On the grounds that committed incompetence is still incompetence, effective followers master skills that will be useful to their organizations. They generally hold higher performance standards than the work environment requires, and continuing education is second nature to them, a staple in their professional development.

Less effective followers expect training and development to come to them. The only education they acquire is force-fed. If not sent to a seminar, they don’t go. Their competence deteriorates unless some leader gives them parental care and attention.

Good followers take on extra work gladly, but first they do a superb job on their core responsibilities. They are good judges of their own strengths and weaknesses, and they contribute well to teams. Asked to perform in areas where they are poorly qualified, they speak up. Like athletes stretching their capacities, they don’t mind chancing failure if they know they can succeed, but they are careful to spare the company wasted energy, lost time, and poor performance by accepting challenges that coworkers are better prepared to meet. Good followers see coworkers as colleagues rather than competitors.

At the same time, effective followers often search for overlooked problems. A woman on a new product development team discovered that no one was responsible for coordinating engineering, marketing, and manufacturing. She worked out an interdepartmental review schedule that identified the people who should be involved at each stage of development. Instead of burdening her boss with yet another problem, this woman took the initiative to present the issue along with a solution.

Another woman I interviewed described her efforts to fill a dangerous void in the company she cared about. Young managerial talent in this manufacturing corporation had traditionally made careers in production. Convinced that foreign competition would alter the shape of the industry, she realized that marketing was a neglected area. She took classes, attended seminars, and read widely. More important, she visited customers to get feedback about her company’s and competitors’ products, and she soon knew more about the product’s customer appeal and market position than any of her peers. The extra competence did wonders for her own career, but it also helped her company weather a storm it had not seen coming.

Courage. Effective followers are credible, honest, and courageous. They establish themselves as independent, critical thinkers whose knowledge and judgment can be trusted. They give credit where credit is due, admitting mistakes and sharing successes. They form their own views and ethical standards and stand up for what they believe in.

Insightful, candid, and fearless, they can keep leaders and colleagues honest and informed. The other side of the coin of course is that they can also cause great trouble for a leader with questionable ethics.

Courageous followers can keep a leader honest—and out of trouble.

Jerome LiCari, the former R&D director at Beech-Nut, suspected for several years that the apple concentrate Beech-Nut was buying from a new supplier at 20% below market price was adulterated. His department suggested switching suppliers, but top management at the financially strapped company put the burden of proof on R&D.

By 1981, LiCari had accumulated strong evidence of adulteration and issued a memo recommending a change of supplier. When he got no response, he went to see his boss, the head of operations. According to LiCari, he was threatened with dismissal for lack of team spirit. LiCari then went to the president of Beech-Nut, and when that, too, produced no results, he gave up his three-year good-soldier effort, followed his conscience, and resigned. His last performance evaluation praised his expertise and loyalty, but said his judgment was “colored by naiveté and impractical ideals.”

In 1986, Beech-Nut and LiCari’s two bosses were indicted on several hundred counts of conspiracy to commit fraud by distributing adulterated apple juice. In November 1987, the company pleaded guilty and agreed to a fine of $2 million. In February of this year, the two executives were found guilty on a majority of the charges. The episode cost Beech-Nut an estimated $25 million and a 20% loss of market share. Asked during the trial if he had been naive, LiCari said, “I guess I was. I thought apple juice should be made from apples.”

Is LiCari a good follower? Well, no, not to his dishonest bosses. But yes, he is almost certainly the kind of employee most companies want to have: loyal, honest, candid with his superiors, and thoroughly credible. In an ethical company involved unintentionally in questionable practices, this kind of follower can head off embarrassment, expense, and litigation.

Cultivating Effective Followers

You may have noticed by now that the qualities that make effective followers are, confusingly enough, pretty much the same qualities found in some effective leaders. This is no mere coincidence, of course. But the confusion underscores an important point. If a person has initiative, self-control, commitment, talent, honesty, credibility, and courage, we say, “Here is a leader!” By definition, a follower cannot exhibit the qualities of leadership. It violates our stereotype.

But our stereotype is ungenerous and wrong. Followership is not a person but a role, and what distinguishes followers from leaders is not intelligence or character but the role they play. As I pointed out at the beginning of this article, effective followers and effective leaders are often the same people playing different parts at different hours of the day.

In many companies, the leadership track is the only road to career success. In almost all companies, leadership is taught and encouraged while followership is not. Yet effective followership is a prerequisite for organizational success. Your organization can take four steps to cultivate effective followers in your work force.

1. Redefining Followership and Leadership. Our stereotyped but unarticulated definitions of leadership and followership shape our expectations when we occupy either position. If a leader is defined as responsible for motivating followers, he or she will likely act toward followers as if they needed motivation. If we agree that a leader’s job is to transform followers, then it must be a follower’s job to provide the clay. If followers fail to need transformation, the leader looks ineffective. The way we define the roles clearly influences the outcome of the interaction.

Instead of seeing the leadership role as superior to and more active than the role of the follower, we can think of them as equal but different activities. The operative definitions are roughly these: people who are effective in the leader role have the vision to set corporate goals and strategies, the interpersonal skills to achieve consensus, the verbal capacity to communicate enthusiasm to large and diverse groups of individuals, the organizational talent to coordinate disparate efforts, and, above all, the desire to lead.

People who are effective in the follower role have the vision to see both the forest and the trees, the social capacity to work well with others, the strength of character to flourish without heroic status, the moral and psychological balance to pursue personal and corporate goals at no cost to either, and, above all, the desire to participate in a team effort for the accomplishment of some greater common purpose.

This view of leadership and followership can be conveyed to employees directly and indirectly—in training and by example. The qualities that make good followers and the value the company places on effective followership can be articulated in explicit follower training. Perhaps the best way to convey this message, however, is by example. Since each of us plays a follower’s part at least from time to time, it is essential that we play it well, that we contribute our competence to the achievement of team goals, that we support the team leader with candor and self-control, that we do our best to appreciate and enjoy the role of quiet contribution to a larger, common cause.

2. Honing Followership Skills. Most organizations assume that leadership has to be taught but that everyone knows how to follow. This assumption is based on three faulty premises: (1) that leaders are more important than followers, (2) that following is simply doing what you are told to do, and (3) that followers inevitably draw their energy and aims, even their talent, from the leader. A program of follower training can correct this misapprehension by focusing on topics like:

Improving independent, critical thinking.

Self-management.

Disagreeing agreeably.

Building credibility.

Aligning personal and organizational goals and commitments.

Acting responsibly toward the organization, the leader, coworkers, and oneself.

Similarities and differences between leadership and followership roles.

Moving between the two roles with ease.

3. Performance Evaluation and Feedback. Most performance evaluations include a section on leadership skills. Followership evaluation would include items like the ones I have discussed. Instead of rating employees on leadership qualities such as self-management, independent thinking, originality, courage, competence, and credibility, we can rate them on these same qualities in both the leadership and followership roles and then evaluate each individual’s ability to shift easily from the one role to the other. A variety of performance perspectives will help most people understand better how well they play their various organizational roles.

Moreover, evaluations can come from peers, subordinates, and self as well as from supervisors. The process is simple enough: peers and subordinates who come into regular or significant contact with another employee fill in brief, periodic questionnaires where they rate the individual on followership qualities. Findings are then summarized and given to the employee being rated.

4. Organizational Structures That Encourage Followership. Unless the value of good following is somehow built into the fabric of the organization, it is likely to remain a pleasant conceit to which everyone pays occasional lip service but no dues. Here are four good ways to incorporate the concept into your corporate culture:

In leaderless groups, all members assume equal responsibility for achieving goals. These are usually small task forces of people who can work together under their own supervision. However hard it is to imagine a group with more than one leader, groups with none at all can be highly productive if their members have the qualities of effective followers.

Groups with many leaders can be chaos. Groups with none can be very productive.

Groups with temporary and rotating leadership are another possibility. Again, such groups are probably best kept small and the rotation fairly frequent, although the notion might certainly be extended to include the administration of a small department for, say, six-month terms. Some of these temporary leaders will be less effective than others, of course, and some may be weak indeed, which is why critics maintain that this structure is inefficient. Why not let the best leader lead? Why suffer through the tenure of less effective leaders? There are two reasons. First, experience of the leadership role is essential to the education of effective followers. Second, followers learn that they must compensate for ineffective leadership by exercising their skill as good followers. Rotating leader or not, they are bound to be faced with ineffective leadership more than once in their careers.

Delegation to the lowest level is a third technique for cultivating good followers. Nordstrom’s, the Seattle-based department store chain, gives each sales clerk responsibility for servicing and satisfying the customer, including the authority to make refunds without supervisory approval. This kind of delegation makes even people at the lowest levels responsible for their own decisions and for thinking independently about their work.

Finally, companies can use rewards to underline the importance of good followership. This is not as easy as it sounds. Managers dependent on yes people and sheep for ego gratification will not leap at the idea of extra rewards for the people who make them most uncomfortable. In my research, I have found that effective followers get mixed treatment. About half the time, their contributions lead to substantial rewards. The other half of the time they are punished by their superiors for exercising judgment, taking risks, and failing to conform. Many managers insist that they want independent subordinates who can think for themselves. In practice, followers who challenge their bosses run the risk of getting fired.

In today’s flatter, leaner organization, companies will not succeed without the kind of people who take pride and satisfaction in the role of supporting player, doing the less glorious work without fanfare. Organizations that want the benefits of effective followers must find ways of rewarding them, ways of bringing them into full partnership in the enterprise. Think of the thousands of companies that achieve adequate performance and lackluster profits with employees they treat like second-class citizens. Then imagine for a moment the power of an organization blessed with fully engaged, fully energized, fully appreciated followers.

A version of this article appeared in the November 1988 issue of Harvard Business Review.

Followership is the actions of someone in a subordinate role. It can also be considered as a specific set of skills that complement leadership, a role within a hierarchical organization, a social construct that is integral to the leadership process, or the behaviors engaged in while interacting with leaders in an effort to meet organizational objectives.^[1] As such, followership is best defined as an intentional practice on the part of the subordinate to enhance the synergetic interchange between the follower and the leader.

In organizations, “leadership is not just done by the leader, and followership is not just done by followers.” ^[2] This perspective suggests that leadership and followership do not operate on one continuum, with one decreasing while the other increases. Rather, each dimension exists as a discrete dimension, albeit with some shared competencies.^[3]

The study of followership is an emerging area within the leadership field that helps explain outcomes. Specifically, followers play important individual, relational, and collective roles in organizational failures and successes.^[4]^[5]^[6] “If leaders are to be credited with setting the vision for the department or organization and inspiring followers to action, then followers need to be credited with the work that is required to make the vision a reality.”^[7]

The term follower can be used as a personality type, as a position in a hierarchy, as a role, or as a set of traits and behaviors. Studies of followership have produced various theories including trait, behavioral attributes, role, and constructionist theories in addition to exploring myths or misunderstandings about followership.

1Followership in organizations
3Looking backward and forward
7Further reading

Followership in organizations[edit]

In the military[edit]

Military perspectives on good followership includes behaviors such as: knows themselves and seeks self-improvement, is technically and tactically proficient, complies with orders and initiates appropriate actions in the absence of orders, develops a sense of responsibility and takes responsibility for own actions, makes sound and timely decisions or recommendations, sets the example for others, is familiar with their leader and his job, and anticipates his requirements, keeps leader informed, understands the task and ethically accomplishes it, a team member, not a yes man.^[8] The U.S. Army has produced a new military doctrine called mission command that highlights the role of followers. It acknowledges one of Colin Powell's principles of leadership that “the commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong, unless proven otherwise”^[9] Mission command doctrine was conceived from a wartime environment that enables followers in the field to act according to the dictates of the situation on the ground, giving them maximum discretion. In order to exercise mission command appropriately, commanders must embrace the principles of followership to succeed.^[10]

In the nursing profession[edit]

It is vital to understand that, without effective followers in nursing, our leaders face severe limitations. Current leaders and educators must share and promote the vision of enlightened followership if nursing is to achieve its potential.^[11] Research suggests that there is significant difference in organizational effectiveness among nurses with different followership styles – passive, alienated, conformist, pragmatist, or effective.^[12]

In education and the classroom[edit]

The appearance of followership in mainstream leadership education books has become more commonplace, including the works of Kouzes & Posner (2012),^[13] Jackson & Parry (2011),^[14] and Hurwitz & Hurwitz (2015)^[15]

Effective followership training in the classroom is challenging because of media messages that preference leadership, internal schemas held by students that ignore followership, and cultural biases against it. Undergraduate and graduate students have been resistant to the idea of followership and followership has been interpreted as leadership poorly enacted or as settling for a lesser position. In recent years, attitudes have begun to change and students have noted that following is an expected, healthy part of a reciprocal relationship in social media and that it did not carry negative connotations.^[16]

Although a student's contribution in the classroom has such high significance, the college admissions system has yet to find a way to recognize and reward students who have continuously made these contributions. Given that outstanding classroom contributions have been ignored, yet play such a vital role, it is the responsibility of the college admissions system to find a way to identify them.^[17]

In the Franchise business model[edit]

Followership, as defined by Hurwitz (2008), is “accepting or enabling [italics original] the goal achievement of one’s leader” (p. 11). In the context of franchising, the franchisee could be seen as a follower because he or she accepts the franchisor's business idea and enables the franchisor's goal achievement through the individual franchise operations.^[18] Leaders can begin by building organizational value for followers and followership; value is a process of incorporating the concept of followership into the organization's culture, policies, and practices.^[19] Because leaders [franchisors] have followers [franchisees] it is their responsibility to set a vision, build trust, and inspire the followers with passion and hope.^[20]^[21]

In the hospitality industry[edit]

In hospitality and tourism, being an effective follower is important for achieving the service-oriented goals of many operations.^[22] In hospitality operations it is often important for followers to work independently of their leaders to carry out important tasks. It has been suggested that incorporating followership into training and education in intentional, purposeful ways could assist operations in hospitality and tourism.^[22]

Followership Learning Community of the International Leadership Association[edit]

The Followership Learning Community (FLC) is a learning community within the International Leadership Organization (ILA) and is “dedicated to the development of knowledge, competencies, and programs concerning the leader-follower relationship. It is the first such academic or practice community devoted to the study of followership. It focuses on research, collaboration, and dissemination of ideas and information”.^[23] The current priorities of the FLC are to:

Help advance followership to a mainstream idea
Generate greater interest in followership studies
Develop a network of scholars who focus on leader-follower relationships
Create a practitioner network of consultants/leaders who employ leader-follower best practices
Support scholars and practitioners seeking to learn more about followership^[23]

Different models of followership[edit]

Author	Summary
Robert Kelley	According to Kelley, effective followers are individuals who are enthusiastic, intelligent, ambitious, and self-reliant. Kelley identified two underlying behavioral dimensions that distinguish types of followers. The first behavioral dimension is the degree to which the individual is an independent, critical thinker. The second dimension is the degree to which the individual is active or passive. Depending on where a person falls on these two dimensions, there are five different follower types: The Sheep (low independence, passive): These individuals require external motivation and constant supervision. The Yes-People (low independence, active): These conformists are committed to the leader and the goal (or task) of the organization (or group/team) and will defend adamantly their leader when faced with opposition from others. They do not question the decisions or actions of the leader. The Pragmatics (average on both dimensions): These individuals are not trail-blazers; they will not stand behind controversial or unique ideas until the majority of the group has expressed their support and often prefer to stay in the background. The Alienated (high independence, passive): These individuals are negative and often attempt to stall or bring the group down by constantly questioning the decisions and actions of the leader. The Star Followers (high independence, active): These exemplary followers are positive, active, and independent thinkers. Star followers will not blindly accept the decisions or actions of a leader until they have evaluated them completely but can be trusted to get the job done.^[5]
Ira Chaleff	Chaleff's original model of Courageous Followership proposed four dimensions in which courageous followers operates within a group, and a fifth dimension in which the follower operates either within or outside the group depending on the response of the leadership. The dimensions of courageous followership are: Assume responsibility: They assume responsibility for themselves and the organization. They do not expect the leader or organization to provide for their security and growth, or need permission to act. Courageous followers discover and create opportunities to fulfill their potential and maximize their value to the organization. They initiate values-based action to improve the organization's external activities and its internal processes. To serve: Courageous followers are unafraid of the hard work required to serve a leader. They assume new or additional responsibilities, stay alert for areas in which their strengths complement the leader's, and assert themselves in these areas. Courageous followers stand up for their leader and the tough decisions a leader must make if the organization is to achieve its purpose. They are as passionate as the leader in pursuing the common purpose. To challenge: Courageous followers give voice to the discomfort they feel when the behaviors or policies of the leader or group conflict with their sense of what is right. They are willing to stand up, to stand out, to risk rejection, to initiate conflict in order to examine the actions of the leader and group when appropriate. They are willing to deal with the emotions their challenge evokes in the leader and group. Courageous followers value organizational harmony and their relationship with the leader, but not at the expense of the common purpose and their integrity. To participate in transformation: Courageous followers champion the need for change and stay with the leader and group while they mutually struggle with the difficulty of real change. They examine their own need for transformation and become full participants in the change process as appropriate. To take moral action: Courageous followers know when it is time to take a stand that is different than that of the leader's The stand may involve refusing to obey a direct order, appealing the order to the next level of authority, or tendering one's resignation. These and other forms of moral action involve personal risk, but service to the common purpose justifies and sometimes demands acting. If attempts to redress the morally objectionable situation fail, a follower faces the more difficult prospect of whether to become a whistleblower.^[24]
Barbara Kellerman	Barbara Kellerman categorized followers as isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards based on their level of engagement in the leadership process. Isolates: Isolates are completely detached. They do not care about their leaders, know anything about them, or respond to them in any way. Their alienation is, nevertheless, of consequence. Bystanders: Bystanders observe but do not participate. They make a deliberate decision to stand aside, to disengage from their leaders and from whatever is the group dynamic. Participants: Participants are engaged in some way. They either clearly favor or oppose their leaders, groups, and organizations of which they are members. In either case, they invest resources to try and make an impact. Activists: Activists feel strongly about their leaders and act accordingly. They are eager, energetic, and engaged. Because they are heavily invested in people and processes, they work hard either on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them. Diehards: Diehards are, as their name implies, prepared to die if necessary for their cause, whether it is an individual, an idea, or both. Diehards are deeply devoted to their leaders; or, in contrast, they are ready to remove them from positions of power, authority, and influence by any means necessary. In either case, Diehards are defined by their dedication including their willingness to risk life and limb. Being a Diehard is all-consuming.^[25]
Hurwitz & Hurwitz	The Generative Partnership Model ® comprises five guiding principles, five skill pairings, and an array of associated behaviors. The guiding principles are at the core of every partnership, team, and organization, providing a framework on which the skills are used. The skills come in matched pairs: each of the five skill pairings involves a multitude of associated behaviors. The behaviors could be considered best practice, but are better considered adaptive and adaptable. Hurwitz and Hurwitz described these five skills of good followership: Decision advocating: Adding value to decision making when it is not your decision to make. Peak performing: Taking initiative for your own engagement, development, and on-the-job performance. Organizational agility: Aligning and thriving within the broader organization including being able to adapt to the norms of different subunits. Dashboard communicating: Keeping your partner well informed and stimulating the right leadership action. Relationship building: Developing rapport, trust, and an understanding of how to work best with leadership The five complementary areas of leadership skill are: Decision framing: Creating an environment and process that optimizes collaboration and decision quality. Performance coaching: Ensuring an environment of purpose, progress, and positivity. Organizational mentoring: Helping to guide others on how best to navigate and operate organizationally. Cascade communicating: Keeping team members informed and stimulating the right followership initiative. Relationship framing: Creating a comfortable, professional, equitable environment for each team member.^[15]
Boas Shamir	Shamir looks at the different types of leader-follower theoretical perspectives rather than developing a specific model of positive followership. Followers as recipients of leadership: A leader's behavior (e.g., articulating a vision, setting a personal example, intellectual stimulation) affects followers’ attitudes and behaviors such as commitment to the organization, or exerting extra effort at work. According to this view followers do not play an active role in the leadership process. Followers as moderators of leadership impact: the leader's influence on the followers’ attitudes and performances depends on the followers’ characteristics. Followers as substitutes for leadership: There are certain conditions that can neutralize or negate the need for leadership. The theory emphasizes followers’ training, experience, and job related knowledge. Followers as constructors of leadership: A much more central and explicit role is given to followers in theories that present leadership as cognitively or socially constructed by followers. Followers as leaders – shared leadership: This perspective questions the usefulness of the distinction between leaders and followers.^[26]
Coyne & Coyne	Coyne and Coyne (2007) proposed seven desirable followership actions from the perspective of a CEO and his or her direct reports: Show your goodwill; Leave your baggage at the door; Study the CEOS's working style; Understand the CEO's agenda; Present a realistic and honest game plan; Be on your “A” game; and, Offer objective options.^[27]
Jimmy Collins	Jimmy L.S. Collins, retired President and COO of Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta, Georgia USA, based Quick Service Restaurant franchise, refers to his philosophy as Creative Followership. He wrote that being a follower is an active role requiring a great deal of creativity, personal initiative, and the ability to execute tasks with excellence. The process begins with identifying a leader worth following.^[28] Even so, when Collins’ suggests that people choose their boss, he gives credibility to followers as more than merely people who work for someone. Rather, he proposes that followers have skills, ideas, and energies that complement those of the leader.^[29] As a result, a relationship is created in which leaders and followers are able to achieve much more than each individual could have accomplished alone.^[30]
Susan Cain	Susan Cain (2017) states that, “Our elite schools over emphasize leadership partly because they’re preparing students for the corporate world, and they assume that this is what businesses need and what leads to personal success. But a discipline in organizational psychology , called “followership” is gaining in popularity.” ^[31]
Adam Grant	The most frequent questions he is asked by people is how to contribute when they are not in charge but have suggestions and want to be heard. He calls these “fundamental questions of followership.'^[31]
Krista Kleiner	Kleiner proposes that colleges focus on followership skills and contributions. In short, college admission officers need to place less emphasis on students’ acquisition of leadership titles throughout high school and place more emphasis on understanding the domain that has been central to their lives—the classroom learning environment and their contributions to it.^[32] If teachers encouraged followership, she posits, they would find ways of improving their classes and also contribute to their students’ becoming both good leaders and followers. By helping students do this, teachers are helping the future working generation of Americans develop skills critical not only to the workplace but to our society as a whole.^[32]
Gordon Curphy, Mark Roellig	The Curphy-Roellig Followership Model builds on some of the earlier research of Hollander, Chaleff, Kellerman and Kelley and consists of two independent dimensions and four followership types. The two dimensions of the Curphy-Roellig model are Critical Thinking and Engagement. Critical thinking is concerned with a follower's ability to challenge the status quo, ask good questions, detect problems, and develop solutions. Engagement is concerned with the level of effort people put forth at work. Based on these two dimensions followers are then categorized into four groups: Slackers (low critical thinking, low engagement), Brown-nosers (low critical thinking, high engagement), Criticizers (high critical thinking, low engagement) and Self-starters (high critical thinking, high engagement). The authors stress a situational nature of the model.^[33]

Looking backward and forward[edit]

A brief history of followership[edit]

The relationship between leader/follower is ancient and is referenced throughout history.^[34] Examples of leader/follower partnerships are present in the great literatures and wisdom traditions of China such as the I Ching (1000-750 BC), India, and the aboriginal myths of Africa, Australia and the Native Peoples of North and South America.^[34] The best known advice from ancient philosophers came from Aristotle who believed, “He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a leader.” In his time, Aristotle perceived that followership was necessary, albeit mainly as a precursor to what he considered to be a more important role: leader.^[35]

Baldasar Castiglione wrote about followers, following and followership in The Book of the Courtier in 1516.^[36] During Japan's Edo or Tokugawa period (1603–1868), the Samurai were a class of followers – the very name samurai meant those who served.^[37]

In the modern era, followership research began with Mary Parker Follett (1868–1933) who believed that all individuals, regardless of their place in society, deserved respect. She wanted to give more power to individuals and ensure that individuals’ voices were not only heard but were also integrated into solutions. Not only were many of her ideas rejected in the 1930s and 1940s, later theorists also paid limited recognition to her work. Follett's writings have also been underappreciated in contemporary research, despite the fact that her work served as a prelude to many of the developments in the management literature and are still considered timely and insightful by many.^[38] Management theorist Warren Bennis said of Follett's work, 'Just about everything written today about leadership and organizations comes from Mary Parker Follett's writings and lectures.' ^[39]

Followership research continued in 1955 when Hollander and Webb (1955) argued that leader and follower was not an either/or proposition in which leaders and followers were found at opposite ends of a continuum. They proposed that the qualities associated with leadership and followership were interdependent.^[40] Zelaznik published work in 1964 that focused on the leader-follower relationship by considering the dimensions of dominance vs. submissiveness and activity vs. passivity.^[41] Followers have been largely neglected in the study of leadership, an omission addressed by Robert Kelley in his seminal 1988 Harvard Business Review article “In Praise of Followers”.^[42] Kelley subsequently wrote The Power of Followership (1992),^[43] which preceded and influenced Chaleff (1995), Potter, et al. (1996), Thody (2000), Meilinger (2001), Latour and Rast (2004), Kellerman, (2007), Bossily (2007), and Hurwitz & Hurwitz (2015).

In 1994 the W.K. Kellogg Foundation provided a four-year grant to study leadership that attracted 50 practitioners and scholars to “shed light on some of the most compelling topics in the field.” Three focus groups emerged from the Kellogg Leadership Studies Project (KLSP), one being the Leadership and Followership Focus Group. The conveners of this group were Ed Hollander and Lynn Offermann who published a bound collection of papers called The Balance of Leadership & Followership.^[44]

The next major organized activity to bring scholars and practitioners together on the subject of followership occurred in 2008 at Claremont University, chaired by Jean Lipman-Blumen of the Peter Drucker and Mastoshi Ito Graduate School of Management , Ron Riggio of the Kravis Leadership Center and Ira Chaleff, author of The Courageous Follower. Participants included researchers and practitioners mentioned in this article including Robert Kelley, Barbara Kellerman and others. In addition to focusing on the elevating aspects of followership, research was introduced on the problematic aspects of followership including the work of Thomas Blass on the famous Stanley Milgram experiments on obedience and by Jean Lipman-Blumen on why we follow toxic leaders. The book of essays by conference contributors, The Art of Followership, was published as part of the Warren Bennis Leadership Series with a foreword by James MacGregor Burns.

Participants in the KLSP went on to form the International Leadership Association (ILA) as a vehicle for keeping the dialogue alive. Similarly, participants in the Claremont conference went on to form the Followership Learning Community within the ILA with Ira Chaleff as its first chair. Both of these entities are continuing with this work.

Additional areas of followership that have been studied include:

Upwards impression management – influencing management through persuasion and other tactics,^[45]
Organizational citizenship behaviors – examples of this include civic virtue, sportsmanship, or helping others,^[46]
Proactive personality theory – the idea that people can influence and shape their own environment,^[47]
Leader-member exchange or LMX – the interchange and relationships between a leader and follower.^[48]

Missing from the present research are additional critical components of followership such as the ability to convert strategies into actions that deliver on the actual intent.^[41]

The future of followership[edit]

Followership theory offers promise for reinvigorating leadership research in rich new ways:^[1]

Moves beyond leader-centric views to recognize the importance of follower roles and following behaviors making the leadership process more inclusive.
Distributes responsibility for constructing leadership and its outcomes to all players in the leadership process.
Focuses us on identifying more and less effective followership behaviors.
Embeds context within the leadership process.
Recognizes that leadership can flow in all directions, e.g., not only downward but also upward in a hierarchy when subordinates engage in leading behaviors.
Allows us to understand why and how managers are not always effective leaders, such as when they are unable to co-construct leadership with their subordinates.
Promotes followership development, not just leadership development.^[1]

Robert Kelley proposes seven areas for further followership research:^[49]

World Events
Culture
Leader(ship)
Follower qualities
Role of the Follower
Language of followership
Courageous Conscience

He challenges the field to focus followership research more on “the big issues happening in the world” such as suicide bombers, religious fundamentalism, democratically elected dictators and corporate abuses of power.

Chaleff calls for a similar focus for research on susceptibility to extremism and the use and development of assessments to help people understand their own tendencies in order to pre-empt their expression in the presence of toxic leaders.^[50]

Academic followership theories[edit]

Theory	Summary
Trait	Identifies key traits and their relationship with strong followership. Zaleznik, 1964 (Dominance vs. submissiveness; Activity vs. passivity), Kelley, 1992 (Active engagement; Independent thinking), Chaleff, 1995 (Courage), Potter, et al., 1996 (Relationship initiative; Performance initiative), Kellerman, 2007 (Engagement)^[41]
Behavioral Attribute	Directly lists the behavioral attributes of good followers.^[41] Kelley (1988), Hurwitz & Hurwitz (2015)
Role Based Approaches	Role-based views consider how individuals enact leadership and followership in the context of hierarchical roles. The primary purpose is to advance understanding of how subordinates work with managers in ways that contribute to or detract from leadership and organizational outcomes.^[1]
Constructionism	Investigates how people interact and engage together in social and relational contexts to construct (or not construct) leadership and followership.^[51]^[1]
Distributed Leadership & Followership	Distributed leadership starts with the perspective many people can take on a leadership role, not just those with formal power and authority. Leadership and followership can move from person to person as the dialogue twists and turns.^[34] Not only are team members challenged to enact followership and leadership roles effectively, but they must be able to switch between the roles. Generally speaking, however, distributed leadership theories focus exclusively on the leadership role.^[1]
Leader-Member Exchange Theory	The focus in LMX theory is on how leaders and followers engage together to generate high quality work relationships that allow them to produce effective leadership outcomes.^[52] While LMX theory does acknowledge followers in the relational process, it is still more leadership – than followership – focused in that it privileges the leader as the driver of the relationship-building process.^[53]^[1]
Implicit Followership Theories	Follower-centric approaches arose in response to leader-centric views and drew attention to the role of the follower in constructing leaders and leadership.^[1] Implicit followership research proposes that leaders’ beliefs for follower behavior influence the extent to which followership is effective; followers who behave as expected will be more successful. They use these schemas to encode followership information, which serves as essential elements of organizational sensemaking.^[1]

Other behavioral traits of effective followership that have been proposed include: a belief in the importance of being a good follower, looks beyond themselves, values their own independence, follows while offering up ideas, self-motivated and self-directed, displays loyalty, considers integrity of paramount importance, functions well in change-oriented environments, functions well on teams, thinks independently and critically, gets involved, generates ideas, willing to collaborate, willing to lead initiatives, develops leaders and themselves, stays current, anticipates, drives own growth, and is a player for all seasons.^[41]

Myths and misconceptions about followership[edit]

Kelley Model Of Followership Explained

The traditional notion that leaders are active and followers are passive is mistaken and contributes to misconceptions about the organizational functions of superiors and subordinates. Behaviorists now recognize that active followers influence leaders at every level of the hierarchy, and that leadership itself is a process, not a person.^[54]

There are many myths about followership:

It is a lesser role.^[25]
It is just preparation for being a leader.
It is managing up, brownnosing or ‘being political'.^[15]
Once you are a leader you are no longer a follower.^[55]
You have to be a good follower to be a good leader.^[35]
Following is passive. It’s easy.^[42]

For more misconceptions, see Part 1 (Chapters 2-4) of Embracing Followership: How to Thrive in a Leader-Centric Culture.

Rethinking Followership By Robert Kelley

References[edit]

Robert Kelley Fantasy

^ ^a^b^c^d^e^f^g^hⁱUhl-Bien, M.; Riggio, R.; Lowe, K.; Carsten, M. (2014). 'Followership theory: A review and research agenda'. The Leadership Quarterly. 25: 83–104. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007.
^Riggio, R. (2014). 'Followership research: looking back and looking forward'. Journal of Leadership Education. Special (4): 15–19. doi:10.12806/V13/I4/C4.
^Favara, F.L. (2009). 'Putting Followership On The Map: Examining Followership Styles and Their Relationship With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance'(PDF). 5: 68–77.Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^Baker, S.D. (2007). 'Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct'. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 14: 50–60. doi:10.1177/0002831207304343.
^ ^a^bKelley, R.E. (1988). 'In praise of followers'. Harvard Business Review. 66: 142–148.
^Koonce, R. (2016). All in “the family”: Leading and following through individual, relational, and collective mindsets. In R. Koonce, M. Bligh, M. K. Carsten, & M. Hurwitz (Eds). Followership in action: Cases and commentaries (pp. 3-13). Bingley, England: Emerald.
^Carsten, M.; Harms, P.; Uhl-Bien, M. (2014). 'Exploring Historical Perspectives of Followership: The Need for an Expanded View of Followers and the Follower Role'. In LaPierre, L.M.; Carsten, M.K. (eds.). Followership: What is it and why do people follow?. Bradford, GBR: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 3–25.
^Townsend, P. (2002). 'Fitting teamwork into the grand scheme of things'. The Journal for Quality and Participation. 25 (1): 16–18.
^Powell, C, (n.d.)
^Thomas, T.; Berg, P. (2014). 'Followership: Exercising discretion'. Journal of Leadership Education. Special (4): 21–35. doi:10.12806/V13/I4/C4.
^DiRienzo, S. (1994). 'A challenge to nursing: Promoting followers as well as leaders'. Holistic Nursing Practice. 9 (1): 26–30. doi:10.1097/00004650-199410000-00006. PMID7798346.
^Han, Ji-Young; Kim, Mi-Ye (2009). 'The Impact of the Followership Style on the Organizational Effectiveness in Nursing Organization'. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration. 15 (2): 233–243.
^Kouzes, J.; Posner, B. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
^Jackson, B.; Parry, K. (2011). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
^ ^a^b^cHurwitz, M.; Hurwitz, S. (2015). Leadership is half the story: A fresh look at followership, leadership, and collaboration. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press 2015 Rotman-UTP Publishing.
^Hurwitz, M. (2017). 'Followership: A Classroom Exercise to Introduce the Concept'. Management Teaching Review. 2 (4): 281–288. doi:10.1177/2379298117717468.
^Kleiner, K. (2008). 'Rethinking leadership and followership: A student's perspective'. In Riggio, R.; Chaleff, I.; Lipman-Blumen, J. (eds.). The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint. pp. 89–93.
^Owen, J (2016). Introducing Followership to Enhance the Booster Juice Franchisor/Franchise Partner Relationship. (Organizational Leadership Project) Royal Roads University. Victoria, Canada
^Bell, D. (2007). Followers' preferences for leaders behavioral characteristics: A case study of franchise restaurants. (Order No. 3274073). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304723103).
^Wildflower,L., & Brennan, D. (2011). The handbook of knowledge-based coaching: What we really do when we coach. Retrieved from http://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/jimages/9780470624449.jpg
^Whiteside, S. (2014). Impact of executive coaching on small businesses and franchisees. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1501643317).
^ ^a^bDeale, Cynthia S.; Schoffstall, Donald G.; Brown, Eric A. (2016). 'What does it mean to follow? An exploration of a followership profile in hospitality and tourism'. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. 16 (4): 235–252. doi:10.1080/15313220.2016.1180964.
^ ^a^b'Followership Learning Community (FLC)'. www.ila-net.org. Retrieved 2017-07-25.
^Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower (Google play books ed.). San Francisco, CA: Barrett – Koehler Publishers Inc.
^ ^a^bKellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
^Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers role in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bein (Eds.), Follower-centre perspectives on leadership: A tribute to Joseph Meindl (Google books edition ed., pp. xii – xviiii). Greenwich, Connecticut, USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
^Coyne, K., & Coyne, E. J. (2007). Surviving your new CEO. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved June 10, 2017, from https://hbr.org/2007/05/surviving-your-new-ceo
^Collins, J. (2013). (with Cooley, M.). In Creative followership: In the shadow of greatness. Decatur, Georgia: Looking Glass Books, Inc.
^Ricketson, R.; Winner, W. D. (2016). 'Corporate president as follower'. In Koonce, R.; Bligh, M.; Carsten, M.; Hurwitz, M. (eds.). Followership in action. UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. pp. 49–56.
^Howell, J., & Mendez, M. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 25–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
^ ^a^bCain, S. (24 March 2017). 'Opinion | Not Leadership Material? Good. The World Needs Followers'. New York Times.(subscription required)
^ ^a^bKleiner, K. (2008). Rethinking leadership and followership: A student’s perspective. . In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 89-93). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint
^Curphy, Gordy J.; Ginnet, Robert C.; Hughes, Richard L. (2015). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (8th ed.). USA: McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 323–329. ISBN978-0077862404.
^ ^a^b^cMaroosis, J. (2008). Leadership: A partnership in reciprocal following. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 17-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass – A Wiley Imprint
^ ^a^bLipman-Blumen (2014). 'Foreward'. Journal of Leadership Education. 13 (4). doi:10.12806/V13/I4/C1.
^Castoglione, B. (1959). The book of the courtier. (C. S. Singleton, Trans.) New York: Double Day, Anchor Books.
^Pascoe, Bruce (2016). 'Followership and the Samurai'. Journal of Leadership Studies. 10 (3): 54–57. doi:10.1002/jls.21494.
^Barclay, Laurie J. (2005). 'Following in the footsteps of Mary Parker Follett'. Management Decision. 43 (5): 740–760. doi:10.1108/00251740510597752.
^'Management Theory of Mary Parker Follett'. business.com. Retrieved 2017-07-25.
^Baker, Susan D. (2016). 'Followership'. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 14: 50–60. doi:10.1177/0002831207304343.
^ ^a^b^c^d^eHurwitz, Marc; Hurwitz, Samantha (2009). 'The romance of the follower: Part 1'. Industrial and Commercial Training. 41 (2): 80–86. doi:10.1108/00197850910939117.
^ ^a^bBennis, W. (2008). Introduction. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership (pp. xxiii-xxvii). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
^Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York, NY: Doubleday.
^Hollander, E., & Offerman, L. (1997). The balance of leadership and followership. No additional information available.
^Harris, K. J., Kacmar, K. M., and Carlson, D. S. (2006), “An examination of temporal variables and relationship quality on promotability ratings”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 677-699
^Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., and Bachrach, D. G. (2000), “Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 513-563
^Thompson, J. A. (2006), “Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1011–1017.
^Gerstner, C. R. and Day, D. V. (1997), “Meta-analytic review of Leader-Member Exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 6, 827-844
^Kelley, R. (2008). Rethinking Followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The Art of Followership (pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass A Wiley Imprint.
^Chaleff, I. (2017). In praise of followership style assessment. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(3), 45-48.
^Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062
^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.
^Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G. B., & Scandura, T. A. (2000). Implications of leader–member exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 18, 137–186.
^Psychology Today Staff (June 9, 2016). 'In Praise of Followers: Many leaders start out as good followers'. Psychology Today.
^Baker, S., Stites-Doe, S., Mathis, C., & Rosenbach, W. (2014). The fluid nature of follower and leader roles. In L. M. Lapierre, & M. K. Carsten (Eds.), Followership: What is it and why do people follow? (pp. 73-88). Bradford, GBR: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd

External links[edit]

'Proceedings of the 2014 International Followers Symposium Preface'. www.journalofleadershiped.org. 13 (4).
Barbara Kellerman, 'What every leader needs to know about followers', Harvard Business Review, December 2007.
Ricketson, Rushton 'Rusty'; Winner, W. David (2016). 'Corporate President as Follower'. Followership in Action. p. 49. doi:10.1108/978-1-78560-948-020161005. ISBN978-1-78560-948-0.
Embracing Followership blog & resources

Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Followership&oldid=895658833'

mxrenew