J ournal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN 1548-6591

J uly 2013, Vol. 10, No. 7, 708-719

Followership: The Forgotten Kingmaker for

Effective Leadership
Larry Enoch Jowah
Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa

Extensive studies have been carried out and theories expounded on leadership, yet no agreement has been reached
on both definition and standards of leadership. The researcher takes the view that all the effort put on the study of
leadership should have been directed toward the study of followership. The characteristics and types of followers
are central to the success of any leadership in the particular environment. In this study, followership is classified as
voluntary and not coerced. The leadership would therefore depend on the nature of the followers and their
expectations, meaning that followers predetermine the nature of leadership. Critical to this is the nature of the
power used by the leader in relation to the power of the followers. A continuum of followership is constructed
along the extremes of transactional and transformational leadership styles. The continuum is a useful tool and
model for effective leadership, effective leadership is therefore dependent on the level of the maturity of the
followers and the agreeableness and congruency between the leader and the followers. The article concludes that
effectiveness of leadership is a direct result of the willingness of the followers to be led in that particular fashion.
Broadly speaking, effective leadership styles are customised to meet the followers demands and expectations.
Keywords: followership, leadership, characteristics of the followers
Followership
A famous and very successful army general exclaimed after his army was defeated: God has got a sense
of humour; He made me the greatest leader in history, but look at what He gave me to lead. If leadership is
influencing, motivating, and enabling others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the
organizations of which they are members (McShane & Von Glinow, 2009), then the followers, in order to be
influenced and motivated, have to be a critical factor in any study of leadership. Evidently, behind every leader
must be great followers who complement and support the leadership to make it effective. In academic literature,
many definitions of leadership have been advanced, and too often there is no agreement on which definition
exactly defines leadership in its entirety (Aquinas, 2008). Researchers on leadership agree on two issues though:
all leaders have followers and effective leaders somehow get others to do things that are helpful for group
performance. Bagraim, Cunningham, Potgieter, and Viedge (2010) posited that leadership was a social process
of influencing people to work voluntarily, enthusiastically and persistently. This assertion distinguishes clearly
between leadership and management.

Corresponding author: Larry Enoch J owah, Ph.D., lecturer and researcher, Department of Management and Project
Management, Cape Peninsula University of Technology; research fields: leadership and project management. E-mail:
J [email protected].
D
DAVID PUBLISHING
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

709
Background
In the path-goal theory, House (1971, pp. 321-338) pronounced four contingency theories, namely
employee, leader behaviour, leader effectiveness, and environmental contingencies. The theory is based on
Vrooms expectancy model as cited by Hellriegel and Slocum (1996, p. 424), this is also referred to as the
theory of motivation. The theory of motivation suggests that effective leaders strengthen the
performance-to-outcome expectancy. These leaders reward employees for work done, or punish those that do
not perform well. The effort-to-performance expectancy is strengthened when the leaders provide the
subordinate with information, support and necessary resources to effect performance. The presence of the
reward becomes the motivator for good performance and attracts loyalty and willingness to follow in
anticipation of the rewards to be achieved by behaving in a particular way. Therefore, if an individual cannot be
the leader, but accepts that the leader will reward them fairly, they may forfeit contestation and become loyal.
This suggests different levels of motivation, motivators, values and attitudes, implying therefore that followers
will follow leaders for different reasons. Figure 1 below illustrates these contingencies.


Figure 1. Houses path-goal theory (McShane & Von Glinow, 2009, p. 235).

Employee contingencies are the skills that the employees have, either from training school or from years
of experience. The level of skills may also impact on the levels of self-confidence and the response to certain
leadership styles. It is hypothesised that a well skilled and experienced person may need different leadership
style for them to be followers. Therefore, the behaviour of the leader may be seen as directive, supportive,
participative and or achievement-oriented. The behaviour will therefore need to be in congruence with the
followership, otherwise the followers may revolt against the leadership. Part of the followership may stem from
employee motivation, employee satisfaction, and/or labour acceptance. If employee motivation is increased,
that may translate to employee satisfaction leading to acceptance by the labour force. This will likely result in
loyal followership, meaning, if subordinates feel that their demands and/or expectations are met, they will most
likely be active followers. The task environment is equally a determinant of the motivation and the end product
of which may be active followership. Depending on the type of follower, the levels of maturity, the task
environment, the expectations, the implicit leadership and followership perceptions, leadership may be
Employee Contingencies
1. Skills
2. Experience
Leader Effectiveness
1. Employee motivation
2. Employee satisfaction
3. Labour acceptance
Leader Behaviour
1. Directive
2. Supportive
3. Participative
4. Achievement-oriented
Environmental Contingencies
1. Task structure
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

710
perceived to be moving along a continuum. Figure 2 below illustrates the different leader-behaviour patterns
used by different leaders, possibly based on the type of skills the followers have.






















Manager decides
and enacts
Manager sells
idea to workers
Manager presents
ideas and invites
questions
Manager presents
tentative decision
subject to change
Manager presents
problem, gets
suggestions, and
makes decisions
Manager defines
limits and asks
group for
decision
Manager allows
subordinates to
function within
superior-defined
limits
Figure 2. Leadership continuum (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1973).

Why Do People Follow?
People quickly recognise leadership in others (Lord, DeVader, & Alliger, 1986). At the beginning of the
year, class representatives are elected by students they do not know. Admittedly, leadership is an indispensable
aspect of human life and arguably, the most critical element of human society. It is pivotal to the success or
failure of society. However, the study on leadership and the focus on effective leadership cannot be complete
without an exhaustive study of the followership and its dynamic nature. From observation in society, there is
leadership and followership in every organisational structure, be it formal or informal.
Dipboye, Smith, and Howell (1994) published a model for the leadership process in which the situational
variables listed leader-member relations as well as follower perceptions were to be considered as part of the
process. For people to follow, there must be an accepted need for spontaneous coordination, as in the case of
emergencies (Argote, 1982), or there must be a threat to which people stand up in self-protection, or as a
collective, they rise under leadership to protect themselves, as in a strike at work. There is a need to consider
simultaneously the perspectives of leadership and followership and the way that compromises can be reached in
a quest to attain mutual benefits to the different individuals concerned (Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008).
Studies on leadership emphasise power as a source of the ability to influence (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1996),
but this does not speak to voluntary followership. Focus is put on formal structures like employment. It does
not explain leadership outside of formal semi-voluntary structures. Of course, there are different reasons for
followership based on the different forms of power. The question remains: Why would people perceived to
have the same power (e.g., education or expertise) be willing to be led by a person with the same education or
expertise? Unless there are other significant pay-offs emanating from choosing followership to leadership.
There is a known flexibility where roles of leader and follower can be interchangeable in the same individuals
(West-Eberhard, 2003). It brings new questions to the theory of power being the cause for leadership. Such
assertions lead to more complexities of our quest to understand followership. Do followers follow because they
are not accorded the opportunity to lead? There is therefore a point at which leaders themselves feel that
followership is the most ideal situation. Is it beneficial to individuals to be leaders or followers depending on
the circumstances?
Arvery, Rotundo, J ohnson, Zhang, and McGue (2006) in their study of twins involved in leadership
concluded that one third of the variance in holding a professional leadership job was due to genetic factors,
which provided partial support for frequency-dependent selection. This means that populations have individuals
with genotypes predestinating them to leadership. If that is the case, it means therefore that followers are born,
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

711
and such people, regardless of culture and other social factors including exposure to leadership and training,
may never end up in leadership roles. If the benefits of competing for status are less attractive, then
followership becomes the wisest thing for them to do (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). Hence, people perceived
to be able leaders, with a good followership, may refuse to stand for the presidential office, for instance. Maybe
followers will deliberately defer leadership now for future opportunities, possibly wanting to go through a
learning process first (Henrich & Gill-White, 2001). Goldberg (1993) proposed big five universal personality
traits common amongst all people, namely extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and
openness to experience. Research findings show that each one of the factors has sub-traits, which invariably
may affect the perceptions that people have about certain issues (Bergh & Theron, 2004). It is important to
develop an integrated approach to leadership and followership by considering psychological, anthropological,
religious, cultural, educational and political structures to understand followership with intentions of deciding on
why people follow. It may be important therefore to turn to the fundamentals of the individual, and illustrated
below are the five big personality factors. The big five factors are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
The Big Five Personality Factors
Factor Factor
Extroversion (surgency):
Warmth, assertiveness, activity-seeking, excitement,
gregariousness, and positive emotions
Introversion:
Silent, unadventurous, timid, unenergetic, and unassertive
Agreeableness (friendliness):
Trust, tender-mindedness, straightforwardness, altruism,
compliance, and modesty
Antagonism:
Stingy, unkind, selfish, distrustful, and unhelpful
Conscientiousness (dependability):
Order, competence, achievement, striving, and deliberation
Lack of direction:
Impractical, lazy, disorganised, irresponsible, and careless
Neuroticism (emotional instability):
Hostility, anger, anxiety, impulsiveness, depression, and
self-consciousness
Emotional stability:
Relaxed, calm, contented, unemotional, and stable
Openness to experience (intellect):
Values, fantasy, aesthetics, action, feelings, and ideas
Closeness:
Uncreative, uniquisitive, unreflective, unsophisticated, and
unimaginative
Note. Source: Pervin and J ohn (1997).
Matching Followership to Leadership
Understanding Followership
The big five personality dimensions as listed above relate to leadership, and extroversion is rated highly
in leadership effectiveness (J udge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Bass (1990), Annes and Flynn (2007), and
House and Aditya (1997) reported correlations between leadership and social dimensions like boldness,
initiative, ambition, assertiveness, risk taking and pro-activity as determinants of potential leadership. If these
findings are correct, then followership may be understood in the context of the absence, or reduced levels of the
social factors in the followers. If followers lack these personality dimensions, they might seek leadership that
gives them the sense of security they need (Bass, 1990). The leaders willingness to give that sense of security
is seen in the followers acceptance of the leadership if they perceive the leader to be trustworthy, fair, generous
and self-sacrificing. Leaders are considered effective by the followers if they bestow dignity to the followers
and enable them to work within their perceived rights, or their rights and privileges as they understand them.
Van Vugt et al. (2008) posited that the psychology of followership was more complicated and more interesting
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

712
than that of leadership. There are more followers than there are leaders, bringing about variations in values,
perceptions, beliefs and preferences. It is not obvious why people agree to subordinate themselves, when
followership may put them at a disadvantage in relation to leadership. Followers also prefer different types of
leaders depending on the problem at hand (McCann, 1992). In times of disaster or threats, leadership emerges
with a committed followership (Baumeister, Chesner, Senders, & Tice, 1989). Again, some people quickly
accept the role of followership when some assume the role of leadership. Van Vugt et al. (2008) observed that
in situations where there were no problems in a community, the people would perform better without
interference from leadership.
Central to any study on leadership should be the study of how influence of followers affects leaders and
the leadership style (Hollander & Offermann, 1990). There should be extensive study to develop models for the
correlates of good followership and its influence on leadership and the styles thereof, meaning, therefore, that
the followership determines the type of leadership and the decisions he/she makes.
Determinants of Leadership Style
An African proverb: You are who you are because of other people. As people rise to leadership, they are
a summation of many interactions with other people and institutions. Each encounter impacts on the leaders
understanding, values, and perceptions. No leader develops in a social vacuum and leadership does not exist
in isolation; people grow up to be leaders. Hartman and Harris (2001), in a study on the effect of parental
influence on leadership, concluded that the childs upbringing influenced his/her values and beliefs, which
affected his/her leadership style if the child became a leader. In the same vein, it can be implied that parental
upbringing may predispose a child to future followership. The results will be in agreement with the
longstanding Bible text: Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it
1
.
Psychology literature contains extensive research on early childhood influences, not specific to leadership or
followership, but relating mostly to values, beliefs and behaviour (Abegglen, 1958). A persons leadership or
followership style should be similar to that of the model from which the person learnt to lead or follow. Fiedler
(1967) assumed that leadership styles were fixed facets of an individuals personality learnt early in life and
reinforced by continuing life experience. In contrast to this assertion, contingency theorists like House and
Aditya (1997) and Vroom and Yetton (1973) are optimistic and posit that leaders are capable of learning and
adopting new styles. As individuals we are inevitably learning all the time (Bergh & Theron, 2004), through
formal education or interaction with other people and through reading and training programmes added on by
experience. Critical to learning is the behavior of the followers, which threaten or confirm the leadership. The
behaviour of the followers shapes the values, the perceptions, the attitudes and the character that is portrayed by
the leader. Therefore, it is implied that there are followership strategies which can be plotted on a followership
continuum. The continuum is illustrated in Figure 3.

Leadership (leadership understands the followers needs, culture, value system and shows empathy with the followers,
human resource-centred)
Equilibrium Reduction of what followers expect
Loss of trust in leadership, less cooperation
Followership (freedom to decide, leadership shares resources fairly, followers are treated with respect, they have a sense of
belonging)
Figure 3. Equilibrium of effective followership.


1
See The Holy Bible. Proverbs 22:6 NIV.
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

713
As illustrated in Figure 3 above, on the left side of the diagram there is convergence of interest and ideas
between the leader and the followers. A degree of congruence and equilibrium results in stability and the
ensuing cooperation from the followers. This is a win-win situation for both, and this encourages performance
and synergy is created and developed. As we move from the left to the right, the leaders understanding,
empathy, sharing and respect for the followers wane up to a point. When leader-follower interests diverge,
there are prospects for a showdown, and at this point it is necessary that the leadership style should change if
the leader wants to be effective. At this stage, people-oriented leadership is more acceptable than autocratic
leadership. The failure of many African leaders to harness the growing divergence of the followership is
responded to by dictatorship. That ceases to be leadership, because followership is voluntary; coerced
followership is not leadership but dictatorship. In the same vein, a manager who resorts to coercive measures
has failed as a leader, hence the resort to use of authority.
When the equilibrium shifts in favour of the followers, where the followers have their own way, then
leadership becomes dysfunctional. Effective leadership therefore emerges as the interests converge, and there is
mutual respect and everyone gets what they expect from the relation and task execution. Vroom and Jago (1978)
postulated that leadership styles should be understood and that there were times when participative (egalitarian)
leadership styles were more appropriate than autocratic (hierarchical) styles. However, there should be a
divergence of interests, and the leadership style must change to that which is meant to persuade people to
perform their tasks. Hofstede (1980) submitted that leadership styles can vary between organisations and
nations according to the cultures and values of the followers. Democracies start to emerge when authorities
make concessions with the followers to avoid loss of power (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2006).
Permission for Leadership
Leaders need permission to lead their followers, except in forced situations. All voluntary followership
requires the permission of the followers, in the form of a vote during elections, or the employee doing extra
work for no extra reward. Leaders will try to coerce followers (Padilla, Hogan, & Kruger, 2007, pp. 176-194)
causing ambivalence on the leader-follower relation. This can be confirmed by historical facts, such as:
(1) Many people who aspired to be leaders failed;
(2) When a leadership aspirant fails, he/she becomes a follower;
(3) Leader dominance results in forced obedience.
In response to leader dominance, followers normally come together and form a resistance force to the
domination, while most societies fight and resist dominance. This may lead to reducing the power of the leaders
(Boehm, 1993). Overbearing leaders can also be disobeyed or ignored, while reluctant followers can slow down
the process or resent the leadership altogether. Van Vugt et al. (2008) observed that exploitative leaders were
ostracised, and that attrition rates were four times greater in autocratic groups than in democratic groups. All
these activities are the followers mechanisms of showing resentment for leadership. If a leader has to stay,
he/she has to adjust to the expectations of the followers or experience rejection.
The Critical Followers Characteristic
In past studies, followers were considered as passive passengers who followed blindly the guidance of
their leaders. Consequently, studies focused on leadership as a determinant of success in an organisation to the
exclusion of followers. If successful leadership and appropriate leadership styles are to affect job satisfaction,
job commitment, low labour turnover, person-organisational fit, and motivation of employees, there is no
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

714
significant understanding of leadership without a study of the followers characteristics and expectations (Li,
2006).
Against the background sketched above, one could formulate the following hypothesis:
Leadership and the leadership style adopted within a specific situation are a result of the interaction
between the leader and the follower(s) operating within that situation. This shows the relevance of the African
proverb quoted above: You are who you are because of (your involvement with) other people.
Extensive studies on the effect of good leadership on job satisfaction and commitment to organisations
have been positive on the person-organisation fit, and hierarchical-subordinate fit positively relates to job
satisfaction. Job satisfaction and commitment lead to a low labour turnover, motivated followership and hence
effective leadership (Posner, 1992). There are imperatives that force us to examine the impact of culture on
leadership if we are to attain organisational objectives that transcend culture (House, J avidan, Hanges, &
Dorfman, 2002). Cognisance is taken of the dynamic nature of culture and the effects of education, training,
inter-cultural interaction, globalisation and technology on traditional values. Contingency theories subscribe to
the fact that the effectiveness of a leader is not an independent variable but dependent on the characteristics of
the followers (Bodla & Hussain, 2010). DePree (1992) asserted that leaders in general accomplished something
by permission of the followers, and leaders normally became effective only because they have been given
permission by the followers to become leaders. Much emphasis has been put on the research and development
of leaders and leadership to the neglect of followership (Meindi, 1987).
All human beings need motivation to perform, and the motivation of the follower is a function of
environmental and internal factors (Bjugstad, 2004). Todays followers want to define their wants and be
treated as they would want and not as leaders think they want to be treated (Bain, 1982). As such, the
effectiveness of a leader is a function of the characteristics of the followers. Critical to effective leadership and
dedicated followership are identification and satisfaction of follower preferences for specific leadership styles.
The contemporary follower is a dynamic follower (Nelson & Quick, 2006). These followers are generally more
literate than followers half a century ago, they live in an environment filled with information and have rights
they can claim either as individuals (consumerism and rights to dignity, etc.) or as groups (unionism).
Followers judge leadership according to their personal characteristics and values, informed by their culture; so,
African followers will perceive things differently. This does not, however, remove the universal nature of
followership. Figure 4 illustrates these preferences.


Values held by followers
Congruence with the leadership style
Prospects of progress in the firm
Personality, perceptions and views
Cultural prototypes and expectations
Mutual trust interpersonal relations
Figure 4. Follower preferences that shape accepted leadership style.

Kelly (1988) identified features that distinguished good followers from bad ones, and classified followers
subsequently as effective and ineffective followers. Extensive literature in the field of leadership and
followership emphasises certain universal characteristics common amongst effective followers, because
Follower preferences
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

715
followership is universal and cross-cultural. Looking at the situation from this viewpoint, it is the effectiveness
of the followers that produces results, and not the effectiveness of the leaders. Effectiveness of leaders can to a
great extent be understood in the context of the leaders ability to have their interests converge with those of the
followers (see Figure 5).


Figure 5. Characteristics of effective followers.

It is important for a leader to be able to distinguish between genuine and committed followers and
passengers who merely seek to be around whilst they look for better prospects for themselves. Nelson and
Quick (2006) asserted that dynamic followers were responsible stewards who were effective in managing the
relationship with the boss and who practiced self-management. Such followers may do this for personal gain
rather than merely as followers. These followers would generally manage themselves well and will go the extra
mile to work for the achievement of the set objectives. They speak the truth as they see it and speak out against
or in favour of a decision (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988). Their focus is on the development of requisite competences,
and they exert maximum effort in their endeavours. Effective followers are distinguishable by their enthusiasm
and self-reliant participation in the pursuit of organisational goals (Blackshear, 2003). The ideal follower is
willing and able to help with the development and sustenance of organisational performance.
Ineffective followers, on the other hand, portray a different and sometimes subtle character and attitude
toward the leadership and tasks. They do just enough to stay in the system and will make no extra effort toward
achievement of the goals and objectives of the organisation. Ineffective followers can be identified by their
negative laidback approach to tasks and the organisation in general. They are passengers awaiting the earliest
opportunity to alight. Figure 6 seeks to simplify the characteristics of unwilling followers.
Ineffective followers focus on the negative and what they are not able to do. They are pessimistic about
everything and blame everyone else for their failure and inability to work well (Nelson, 2001). To be effective,
a leader should be able to identify followers and their responses to the leadership. This enables the leader to
identify areas where change is necessary.

Characteristics of effective
followers

Enthusiasm =actively involved in the task
Speak-out =always say their point of view
Sincerity = honest about involvement
Competency =show desire to excel

Possible causes of loyalty

Congruency with the
values of the leader or in
agreement with the set
objectives for the task

Interest in the tasks or
merely to advance
personal prospects
Maximum effort =exert themselves to perform
Commitment = seen by their regular presence
Seek for congruency =strive to fit into programme
Assertive =willing to take risks to achieve tasks
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

716

Cynical
Critical
Apathetic
Alienated
Withdrawn
Blame game
Figure 6. Characteristics of ineffective followers.

Socio-politico and Cultural Conditions of the Followers
In a homogeneous cultural, geographical and linguistic setup, the likelihood is that the people will
subscribe to certain norms that govern the way they do things. Many parts of Asia and Africa have paternalistic
structures, where respect is accorded according to age. One would expect therefore that disagreeing openly with
a senior leader is considered as a sign of disrespect. A younger leader is therefore still expected to respect those
subordinates or followers who are older than the leader according to the norms. In the same vein, the levels of
education of the followers, the ease with which the followers can switch loyalty, and the compelling reason for
followership, will inevitably impact on their willingness to follow voluntarily. Followers have to be powerless
to follow unwillingly, meaning therefore that different personalities will require different leadership styles;
hence, the inability of research to have a conclusive model of effective leadership. Followers are not
homogeneous in their perceptions, values, motivations and aspirations, even in the same culture. In any cultural
group, adherence to the cultural norms will be characterised by varying degrees of compliance. The absence of
equal adherence to standardised cultural norms suggests a continuum on which cultural norms are valued from
extreme absoluteness to one of relativity.
Conclusions
Followership Continuum
The response (acceptance or rejection) by followers to leadership largely depends on the amount and type
of power the followers have, their level of maturity, the size of the followers (numbers), and what is at stake for
them. As an example, the project manager in a matrix has limited powers because of the authority gap, the
manager resorts to coalition, negotiation or consensus to effectively implement the project objectives.
Alternatively, followers can disobey the leaders instructions and slow down productivity to the detriment of
the project. People choose to become followers for various reasons, chief amongst them; and individual may
think that the other person is better able, or that there is a lot of pain that goes with leadership, or may not see
the gain in taking the pains of leadership, or that no one is prepared to put them forward as leaders, or for fear
of failure as leaders, and many other possible causes. Two distinct leadership styles commonly contrasted are
transformational and transactional leadership styles. Transformational leadership focuses on the followers
needs and welfare and involves followers in the leadership process by motivating them. Transactional
leadership focuses on principles and policies and production targets and punishes under performers
compliance by cohesion. Effective followership is likely to be found amongst transformationalists as opposed
to transactionalists. A followership continuum is suggested and is plotted by contrasting the two schools of
leadership thought. Figure 7 illustrates the point.

Characteristics of
ineffective followers
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

717
Transactional leadership style




Transformational leadership style





Given all plans
done by the
manager
Everything done
and directed by
the manager
Many rules
controls and
regulations with
no participation
by followers
Equilibrium
Empowered and
feels like
belonging
Freedom to make
decisions and be
innovative
Follows leader
without questions
Figure 7. Followership continuum (based on transactional and transformational leadership).

As illustrated in the diagram, the ability of followers to make choices, either because of the political nature
of the society (labour movements), or because of levels of education and types of skills, or purely because of
upbringing, creates a platform for followership to shape the leader. If the leader is not acceptable or does not
speak to their needs, they will remove the leader or simply be uncooperative.
If the followers are directionless, timid and at lower levels of the organisational structure concerned, they
may find it difficult to oppose the leadership. If the followers are professionals, they will simply move their
skills elsewhere if the leader cannot change. By implication, workers at different levels at a work place cannot
be treated the same. The leader needs to adjust his/her leadership style depending on the followers power or
vulnerability. The degree of subordinate involvement increases along the continuum until the leader is fully
subordinate-centred and delegates fully to the subordinates. On the basis of this, the author prescribes four
distinct styles of followership. These are:
(1) The submissive introverts with little self-confidence;
(2) The conscientised ones who want to be consulted;
(3) The we know it too ones who want to make decisions;
(4) The better than you ones who think they can manage better.
Every individual is a mixture of many things: experiences, culture, values, fears and concerns, ambition
and many other components of human life. These different people will behave differently and respond
differently, but the sum total of their differences is what decides the type of power a leader has and can use and
also how it can be used. Followership is a universal phenomenon, and every structure, regardless of levels of
education, civilisation, skill, etc., will always have leaders and followers. People perceive leadership in
different forms, some base the ability to lead on physical posture, or show of self-confidence, or outspokenness,
or how neat and organised people look. If therefore the observers feel that they do not measure up to the levels
reached by the other person, they most likely will follow. Thus assumptions are made about the ability of a
student to be a leader in a class, or in a group meeting for the very first time. In the minds of people, they
decide when to be followers and when to lead when they consider themselves comparatively less able or
without enough courage. This agrees in part with the implicit followership theory (Sy, 2010).
References
Abegglen, J . C. (1958). Personality factors in social mobility: A study of occupationally mobile businessmen. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 58, 101-129.
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

718
Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J . A. (2006). Economic origins of dictatorship and democracy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Annes, D. R., & Flynn, F. J . (2007). What breaks a leader. The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 307-324.
Aquinas, P. G. (2008). Organisational structure and design. New Delhi: Excel Books.
Argote, L. (1982). Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency units. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 27, 420-434.
Arvery, R. D., Rotundo, M., J ohnson, W., Zhang, Z., & McGue, M. (2006). The determinants of leadership occupancy: Genetic
and personality factors. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 1-20.
Bacharach, S. B., & Bamberger, P. (1995). Beyond situational constraints: J ob resources, inadequacy, and individual performance
at work. Human Resources Management Review, 5(2), 79-102.
Bagraim, J ., Cunningham, P., Potgieter, T., & Vidge, C. (2010). Organisational behaviour (2nd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik
Publishers.
Bain, D. (1982). The productivity prescription. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bales, R. F. (1951). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, M.A.: Addison-Wiley.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass and Stodgills handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New
York: Free.
Baumeister, R. F., Chesner, S. P., Senders, P. S., & Tice, D. M. (1989). Who is in charge here? Group leaders do lend help in
emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17-22.
Bergh, Z. C., & Theron, A. (2004). Psychology in the work context (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bjugstad, K. (2004). Internet book search on leadership and followership. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com.html
Blackshear, P. B. (2003). The followership continuum: A model for fine tuning the workforce. Public Manager, 32(2), 25.
Bodla, M. A., & Hussain, G. (2010). Followers characteristics and leadership styles: An empirical fit among employees in
Pakistan. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 7(6), 73-81.
Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian society and reverse dominance hierarchy. Current Anthropology, 34, 227-254.
DePree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz. New York: Doubleday Publishing.
Dipboye, R. L., Smith, C. S., & Howell, W. C. (1994). Understanding industrial and organizational psychology: An integrated
approach. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Filley, A. C., & House, R. J . (1969). Managerial process and organizational behavior. Glenview, I.L.: Scott Foresman.
French, R. P. J r., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. F. Zander (Eds.), Group Dynamics:
Research and Theory (pp. 607-623). Evanston, I.L.: Row, Peterson and Co.
Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J . A. (2000). On the evolutionary psychology of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism.
Behavioural and Brain Science, 23(4), 573-587.
Gilbert, R. G., & Hyde, A. C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public Administration Review, 48, 962-968.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. The American Psychologist, 48, 26-34.
Hartman, S. J ., & Harris, O. J . (2001). The role of parental influence in leadership. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132(2),
153-167.
Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J . W. Jr. (1996). Management (7th ed.). Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing.
Henrich, J ., & Gill-White, F. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the
benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 22, 165-196.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, C.A.: Sage.
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations: Relationships in transition. American
Psychologist, 45, 179-189.
House, R. J . (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administration Science Quarterly, 16, 321-338.
House, R. J ., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409-473.
House, R. J ., & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97.
House, R., J avidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the
globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37, 3-10.
J ohns, G. (2001). Commentary: In practice of context. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 22(1), 31-42.
J udge, T., Bono, J ., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of
FOLLOWERSHIP: THE FORGOTTEN KINGMAKER FOR EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP

719
Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.
Kane, K. F. (1993). Special issue: Situational constraints and work performance. Human Resource Management Review, 3,
83-175.
Kelly, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66, 142-148.
Li, J . (2006). The interactions between person-organisation fit and leadership styles in Asia firms, an empirical testing.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(10), 1689-1706.
Lord, R. G., DeVader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality traits and leadership
perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 402-410.
McCann, S. J . H. (1992). Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. presidents: Personality, situational, and Zeitgeist
factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 469-479.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Organisational behaviour (2nd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Meindi, J . R. (1987). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 91-108.
Nelson, B. (2001). Please dont just do what I tell you. New York: Hyperrion.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J . C. (2006). Organisational behaviour. London: Thompsons.
Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kruger, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, vulnerable followers, and conducive
environments. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176-194.
Pervin, L. A., & J ohn, P. J . (1997). Personality: Theory and research (7th ed.). New York: Wiley.
Posner, B. Z. (1992). Person-organisation values congruence: No support for individual difference as a moderating influence.
Human Relations, 45(4), 351-361.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership
theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73-84.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How to choose a leadership pattern. Harvard Business Review, May-J une, 162-180.
Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution. American Psychologist, 63(3),
182-196.
Vroom, V. H., & J ago, A. G. (1978). On the validity of the Vroom-Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 151-162.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, P.A.: University of Pittsburgh Press.
West-Eberhard, M. J . (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.