Leader perceptions and motivation as outcomes of followership role orientation and behavior

Abstract

Followership research posits that followers differ in the way they define and enact the followership role, which can have varying effects in relation to how leaders experience their own roles and responsibilities. Drawing from the role orientation literature and newly emerging research on followership, our study examines the indirect effects of followers’ co-production (co-producing leadership outcomes) and passive (deferring to leadership influence) role orientations on leader-rated outcomes of perceived follower support, leader motivation, and follower contribution to goal attainment via followers’ voice and upward delegation behaviors. Using data from 306 dyads in a Chinese organization, our results show that follower voice and upward delegation mediate the relationships linking followers’ co-production and passive role orientations with leader-rated outcomes. Our study provides evidence that followership role orientations and behaviors differentially influence leader perceptions regarding their followers’ support, contribution to goal attainment, and leader motivation. Implications are drawn for further research on followership and the importance of considering leader outcomes as critical variables in leadership and followership literatures.

Keywords

Followership theory leadership voice upward delegation role orientation perceived followership support leader motivation

As the study of followership gains momentum (Benson et al., 2016; Blom and Alvesson, 2014; Carsten et al., 2010; Junker and van Dick, 2014; Kelley, 1998; Leroy et al., 2015; Oc and Bashshur, 2013; Sy, 2010) it opens doors for leadership research to recognize the fruitful opportunities of problematizing and theorizing from the followership angle (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Scholars have begun addressing followership by studying follower identities and styles (Collinson, 2006), and how followers may enact behaviors that are traditionally associated with leadership (Cunha et al., 2013). Addressing calls by Shamir (2007) and others (Kellerman, 2013), scholars have also begun investigating how followers affect leaders on an interpersonal or emotional level (Schneider et al., 2014). This research highlights an important aspect of the leadership process currently missing in the literature: how do subordinates’ followership characteristics and behaviors relate to the ways in which managers experience the leadership role? For over half a century, leadership research has examined follower attitudes and motivation as outcomes of leaders’ behavior (Bass, 1990; House and Podsakoff, 1994; Locke, 1991). Yet very little research has examined leader outcomes of followers’ behavior (for exceptions see Farris and Lim, 1969; Greene, 1975; Herrold, 1977; Lowin and Craig, 1968).

Our research addresses this issue by investigating how leader attitudinal and motivational outcomes are related to two types of followership role orientation beliefs: (a) the belief that followers should defer responsibility to leaders, and (b) the belief that followers are active partners in the leadership process (Shamir, 2007). The first is representative of traditional “passive” views of followership in the literature (Kelley, 1992; Zaleznik, 1965). The second is representative of conceptualizations of followers as active agents in the leadership process, i.e. “co-producers” (Hollander, 1992a; Howell and Shamir, 2005). We argue that these different followership beliefs or orientations influence how followers interact with leaders. As a result, managers may develop different perceptions and cognitions while working with subordinates enacting different followership behaviors.

For followership research to advance, it is important to understand how managers view followership orientations and behaviors of subordinates—that is, just as the effects of leadership are reflected in follower (i.e., subordinate) outcomes (Bass, 1990), the effects of followership are reflected in leader (i.e., manager) outcomes (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). One challenge in the study of followership is that unlike the manager role commonly investigated in leadership research, which can be clearly defined and described in terms of authority and role definition (Mintzberg, 1973), the follower role is not always clear with respect to role duties and responsibilities. While traditionally the follower role has been characterized as one of “subordinate-ship” (Heckscher, 1994; Taylor, 1947), in recent decades the definitions of leadership and followership have expanded (Chaleff, 2003; Collinson, 2006; Hollander, 1992a, 1992b; Kellerman, 2013), generating more options for how subordinates can view and enact the follower role. According to Küpers and Weibler (2008: 443), highly dynamic organizational environments “bring about new exigencies, modified roles and tasks, as well as challenging demands on leaders, followers, and leadership.”

This notion of expanded role definitions in response to changing environments is captured in the literature on role orientations (Parker et al., 1997), and may help in understanding how variations in followership role beliefs and followership behaviors are perceived in the eyes of the leader. Role orientation is defined as an individual’s beliefs about the responsibilities inherent in a particular role, and the way that role should be successfully executed (Parker, 2000, 2007; Parker et al., 1997). Applied to followership, Applied to followership assesses the different beliefs individuals have about the best way to approach and enact a followership role (Carsten et al., 2010, 2014). This construct aligns with role theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966; Zaleznik, 1965) and traditional role-based views of leadership and followership, where followers’ role beliefs and expectations are derived from their hierarchical position (i.e., following the chain of command) in the organization (Dvir and Shamir, 2003; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Kelley, 1998; Oc and Bashshur, 2013; Sy, 2010; Zaleznik, 1965).

Building on role theory and role orientation research, this study examines how different followership role orientations are associated with manager perceptions and motivation. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to first establish the relationship between followership role orientation (passive, co-production) and followership behaviors (voice, upward delegation), and then examine indirect effects of followership role orientation on leader outcomes (perceived follower support, leader motivation, follower contribution to leader performance). In doing so, this study shows how leaders respond to followership behaviors relative to the orientations followers bring to their role. For example, followers may engage in greater voice and less upward delegation because they believe in partnering with leaders (i.e., co-production orientation) (Benson et al., 2016), or they may refrain from voice and delegate problems upward because they believe in deference (i.e., passive orientation) (de Vries and van Gelder, 2005; Morand, 1996). The question is, how do leaders perceive followers who engage in different behaviors as a result of their role orientation beliefs? Do they see followers with a co-production orientation as more beneficial than those with a passive orientation, or do they prefer followers who enact their role more passively, consistent with views of followers as subordinates (Heckscher, 1994; Weber, 1968)? Findings from the voice literature regarding leader responses to voice are mixed (Burris, 2012; Burris et al., 2013). Bringing a followership role orientation perspective to the question will provide more context to the motivation and desires of subordinates as they engage in these types of behaviors, helping us better understand why leaders respond to followers as they do.

Our research makes several important contributions to the followership literature. The present study is among the first to investigate leader outcomes (not leader-rated follower outcomes) associated with different followership orientations and behaviors. As such, our research adds new understanding regarding how managers experience their leadership role in response to followership. Through this approach we are able to offer new insight into the question of what makes followership more or less beneficial in the eyes of leaders—an issue of tremendous importance for both theory and practice. Second, this study extends the role-based perspective of followership theory (see Uhl-Bien et al., 2014) by applying a role orientation approach (Parker, 2007; Parker et al., 1997) to the study of followership. This theoretical foundation allows us to examine the various ways in which followers conceptualize their role and the role beliefs that drive interactions with leaders (Carsten et al., 2010). In so doing, this research shows the value of a role orientation perspective for understanding how changing work contexts are associated with evolving views of the follower role that move beyond seeing followers as “subordinates” (Cunha et al., 2013; Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien and Pillai, 2007). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we draw attention to the need to consider manager attitudes and motivation as important topics of investigation in their own right. Given the predominant tendency to examine follower outcomes in both leadership and followership research, a focus on leader outcomes is a topic about which, surprisingly, we currently know very little.

In the following sections, we draw from role theory and role orientation literature to define followership role orientations and present rationale for their relationships with both follower behaviors and leader outcomes. In each of these sections, we present hypotheses regarding direct and indirect (i.e., mediated) relationships that we test in this study. We then describe the methodology used to collect data from subordinates over two time periods, as well as managers from a large privately owned internet company in China. The Chinese context is appropriate for testing our proposed relationships because the workplace culture in many Chinese companies emphasizes both partnership and deference (McElhatton and Jackson, 2012). This particular organizational context provided an opportunity to test our hypotheses in an environment that depends on partnerships between managers and subordinates, and generalizes to other dynamic and highly competitive organizations around the globe. Finally, we present our results and conclude with a discussion on how our findings contribute to theory and practice, as well as next steps for researchers interested in studying followership in organizations.

Followership role orientation and behaviors

Followership role orientations are rooted in role theory (Katz and Kahn, 1966), which states that individuals hold multiple roles and the behaviors demonstrated when enacting these roles are largely determined by how individuals construe the requirements of the role (Selznick, 1957). Within the subordinate role, followership role orientations are defined as the beliefs that individuals hold about the responsibilities inherent in the role, and the types of tasks and behaviors that make followers successful (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). role orientations are neither purely state- nor trait-like constructs (cf. Youssef and Luthans, 2007); rather, consistent with Parker et al. (1997), they develop early in life (Kuhn and Laird, 2011) and evolve over time as individuals gain experience in a variety of environments and contexts.

Followership role orientations are not observable or overt behaviors, but rather cognitive belief structures and schema regarding what the follower role means relative to the leader (Carsten et al., 2014). According to Parker (2007), “even within the same job, employees will have different beliefs regarding what their role is about” (p. 404). Given that this study is among the first to examine followership role orientations and leader outcomes, we explore two of the most prominent orientations in the management literature: “co-production” orientation (i.e., the belief that followers should actively engage with leaders to advance mutual goals) and passive orientation (i.e., the belief that followers should remain deferent to a leader’s influence and directives) (Baker, 2007; Chaleff, 2003; Collinson, 2006; Howell and Mendez, 2008; Kelley, 1998; Shamir, 2007). Although related, these orientations are not conceptualized as polar opposites (Carsten et al., 2010). For example, a subordinate may be low on both orientations—believing that they should neither engage nor defer (i.e., non-following; Weitman, 1962). Likewise, a subordinate may be moderate on both orientations—believing that they should engage to a certain point, but defer to the leader’s decision no matter what (i.e., active followership; Carsten et al., 2010). Thus, these orientations are not considered to be ends of a single continuum.

Role orientation beliefs have been shown to be an important driver of behavior (Parker, 2007; Parker et al., 2006). Thus, this study examines differences in how followers speak up (Liang et al., 2012; Van Dyne and LePine, 1998) or engage in upward delegation (Whittaker, 2011) with their leaders in accordance with their followership role orientation. Voice captures the extent to which followers proactively bring their suggestions or ideas for change to the leader’s attention. Upward delegation captures the extent to which followers defer decision-making and problem-solving to the leader, rather than working to solve problems on their own (Tepper et al., 2006; Whittaker, 2011). We theorize that these two different patterns of followership behaviors as seen in the workplace are dependent on the co-production and the passive followership orientations subordinates hold.

Co-production orientation

Co-production orientation is the belief that followers should actively engage and partner with leaders to enhance the effectiveness of the work unit (Carsten and Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2007). Individuals with a strong co-production orientation believe that the follower role is responsible for gathering and relaying important information to leaders, identifying and solving problems, and constructively challenging the leader when appropriate (Carsten et al., 2010; cf. Dvir and Shamir, 2003). In the leadership and followership literatures, followers with a co-production orientation have been described as “courageous followers” (Chaleff, 2003), “exemplary followers” (Kelley, 1992), “dramaturgical selves” (Collinson, 2006), and “activists” (Kellerman, 2008). For example, Hollander (1993) suggests that “followers can affect leaders actively in more than trivial ways” (p. 31) such that “the involvement of followers has to be recognized as a key component of effective leadership” (p. 42). Thus, a co-production orientation is associated with a view that a strong and active follower role is necessary for supporting leaders in accomplishing the organizational mission (Bjugstad et al., 2006; Crossman and Crossman, 2011; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Kellerman, 2008; Rost, 1991, 1995).

Passive orientation

Passive orientation is associated with the belief that leadership is the responsibility of the “leader” and that followers have little to offer to the leadership process (Baker, 2007; Tyler, 1997). Individuals with a passive orientation believe a follower should remain silent, refrain from participating in decision making or problem solving, and let leaders take responsibility for the goals of the work unit (Carsten et al., 2010). In the followership literature, passive orientation is typified in characterizations of followers as “sheep” (Kelley, 1992), “benign followers” (Lipman-Blumen, 2005), or “conformist selves” (Collinson, 2006).

The underlying assumption in conceptualizing passive orientation is that hierarchical role differentials are legitimate and justified by differences in knowledge, expertise, and ability (Tyler, 1997). Those with a strong passive orientation see the responsibility for generating ideas, gathering information, and setting goals as lying in the leadership position (Crossman and Crossman, 2011), and the role of the follower as deferring to the leader’s expertise and judgment. In alignment with a subordinate status (Heckscher, 1994; Weber, 1968), individuals with a stronger passive orientation believe the responsibility of a follower is to support the leader by effectively implementing and carrying out orders (Courpasson and Dany, 2003; de Cremer and Van Dijk, 2005; de Vries and van Gelder, 2005).

Followership role orientation and voice

Given that stronger co-production orientation is associated with the belief that followers should actively engage in generating ideas and solving problems (Carsten et al., 2010), we expect co-production orientation to be positively associated with voice. Voice is defined as a behavior wherein employees propose improvement-oriented ideas and suggestions for change (Van Dyne and LePine, 1998). Prior literature suggests that voice behavior in a manager-subordinate context is associated with the belief that subordinates have valuable information and insight to offer to the leadership process (Detert and Burris, 2007; Morrison, 2011). Liang et al. (2012) found that when followers sense that their role involves an obligation for constructive change, they are more likely to engage in voice behaviors that positively challenge the status quo. Followers with a weaker co-production orientation, on the other hand, may not voice to the same extent as those stronger in co-production orientation. These followers are not as committed to helping the leader achieve his or her goals, and may refrain from voicing in a way that produces positive change.

Conversely, followers with a stronger passive role orientation believe the best way to enact their role is by deferring to the leader’s expertise (Carsten et al., 2010). They would not feel it is their place to speak up; believing instead that the leader is responsible for proposing change-oriented ideas (Kelley, 1992). This would translate into less frequent voice behavior for those stronger in passive orientation, and greater voice behavior for those not holding this view (Morrison and Milliken, 2003). This is consistent with research suggesting that individuals who strongly endorse power differentials are more likely to remain silent and deferent because they perceive that they have little to contribute to the leadership process (Baker, 2007; de Vries and van Gelder, 2005; Morand, 1996).

Hypothesis 1a: Co-production orientation will be positively associated with follower voice.

Hypothesis 1b: Passive orientation will be negatively associated with follower voice.

Followership role orientation and upward delegation

Leadership research has long studied delegation as a means of empowering employees to autonomously solve problems and make decisions normally made by a leader (Bass, 1990; Yukl and Fu, 1999). Research suggests, however, that some subordinates might not welcome the opportunity to engage in autonomous tasks that require independent thinking and decision making (Hollingsworth and Al-Jafary, 1983). Rather than attempting to make decisions or solve problems on their own, some individuals will transfer decision-making and problem solving back up to the manager (i.e., upward delegation) (cf. Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1998). They do this because they believe “it’s not their job” or that they do not have the expertise or experience to effectively handle the issue (Hollingsworth and Al-Jafary, 1983).

Individuals with a stronger co-production orientation see autonomous decision making as an opportunity to assist their leader in advancing the productivity of the work unit (Carsten et al., 2010; Carsten and Uhl-Bien, 2012). These individuals see upward delegation as inconsistent with their beliefs about supporting leaders and actively engaging in the leadership process. Rather than rejecting the independence and autonomy afforded to them by their manager, they may actively work to ensure that problems are solved effectively (Kark et al., 2003). Therefore, our expectation is that co-production orientation will be negatively associated with upward delegation.

Followers who are stronger in passive orientation, on the other hand, are likely to engage in more upward delegation because they see leaders as having superior knowledge, expertise, and decision making ability (Carsten et al., 2010). For them, upward delegation is an effective followership behavior because it puts the responsibility for decision-making where it belongs—in the manager’s hands. Research demonstrates that subordinates with hierarchical views of the manager–subordinate relationship experience greater stress when asked to engage in decision-making (Chen and Aryee, 2007). Kirkman and Shapiro (1997) found that the highest levels of stress and anxiety were present in individuals with strong beliefs in power distance; the view that managers, not subordinates, should be the ones responsible for decision-making and problem solving. Therefore, we expect passive orientation to be positively related to upward delegation.

Hypothesis 2a: Co-production orientation will be negatively associated with upward delegation.

Hypothesis 2b: Passive role orientation will be positively associated with upward delegation.

Leader outcomes

A number of leadership studies suggest that followers can serve as a source of support and assistance for the leader (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1993; Yukl, 1999; Yun et al., 2006). However, fewer studies have examined the way leaders respond to working with different types of followers (Schneider et al., 2014). Our research addresses this gap by examining how followership role orientation and behaviors are associated with the way managers feel about their own motivation and ability to achieve leadership outcomes. According to Parker et al. (2006), role orientation beliefs drive the behavior exhibited in a particular role. While the beliefs are the driving force, it is the behavior that is readily witnessed and evaluated by managers and others. Thus, our study posits that voice and upward delegation will mediate the relationship between followership role orientation and leader outcomes. This study examines three outcome variables generated from existing literature on how leaders are influenced by followers (Mesdaghinia, 2014; Sy, 2010; Uhl-Bien et al., 2014): perceived follower support (i.e., the extent to which leaders feel supported by their follower), leader motivation (i.e., the extent to which the leader feels motivated and energized by working with the follower), and leader perceptions of follower contributions to goal attainment (i.e., how much they believe the follower helps them achieve their leadership goals).

Leader responses to co-production orientation and behavior

Followers with a stronger co-production orientation are more conscious of the mission and leadership objectives (Carsten et al., 2010). They would be expected to recognize the time and information constraints that leaders experience and behave in a way that supports and furthers the leadership agenda (Hirschhorn, 1990; Howell and Shamir, 2005). Following the assertions of Parker and colleagues (Parker, 2007; Parker et al., 2006), when role orientations manifest in behavior, it is likely to affect both leader perceptions and work unit outcomes. For example, co-production orientation may manifest in voice behavior directed at providing ideas and suggestions in a way that makes the leader feel supported and motivated. Followers with co-production beliefs are also expected to proactively solve problems rather than passing them on to the leader through upward delegation. As such, these follower behaviors are expected to mediate the relationship between role orientation beliefs, and leader perceptions of support, motivation, and contribution to goals.

When leaders perceive that follower behaviors are driven by a belief in mutual partnership and mission enhancement consistent with co-production orientation, we expect they will experience more positive outcomes. This is seen in Yukl and Fu’s (1999) assertion that leaders appreciate followers who can relieve some of their work demands and reduce stress and overload. It is also consistent with research suggesting that managers benefit when subordinates proactively take initiative to enhance work outcomes (Bateman and Crant, 1993; Grant et al., 2009). Thus, managers who engage with followers who voice because of their co-production orientation may report that the follower cares about their wellbeing and values their leadership (i.e., higher perceived follower support) (cf. Eisenberger et al., 2002; Kottke and Sharafinski, 1988), motivates them as a leader and makes their work as a leader meaningful (i.e., greater leader motivation) (cf. Spreitzer et al., 1997), and contributes to the leader’s ability to generate positive change and enhance performance (i.e., higher follower contribution to goal attainment).

Alternatively, those with a weaker co-production orientation are not as driven to enhance the mission. They are also not as partnership focused, and may instead believe that they have little to offer to the leadership agenda. As a result of their role orientation, these individuals may withdraw more, holding back ideas even when they have them and delegating difficult problems to the leader. In turn, leaders may see these followers as less supportive, less motivating and contributing less productively to goal attainment.

Hypothesis 3: Voice and upward delegation will mediate the relationship between co-production orientation and leaders’ perceived follower support, leader motivation, and leader perceptions of follower contribution to goal attainment.

Leader responses to passive orientation and behavior

Individuals with a stronger passive orientation believe that followers should let the leader make autonomous decisions, and then do what the leader says (Baker, 2007; de Vries and van Gelder, 2005; Morand, 1996). These beliefs may manifest in follower behavior that is silent and deferent, placing greater responsibility on the manager. Managers who try to involve these subordinates in decision-making or process improvement might find that they receive little input or engagement (Crossman and Crossman, 2011; Hirschhorn, 1990). Thus, a passive role orientation is expected to influence less voice and more upward delegation, which will subsequently influence the leader’s perceptions of support, motivation, and contribution to goals.

The reduced voice and increased upward delegation associated with a passive orientation could make the manager’s job more challenging and time consuming (Yukl and Fu, 1999), ultimately leading to depletion of leader energy and motivation. Because these followers are likely to shy away from offering ideas and suggestions and rely heavily on leaders for decision-making, it could be that they occupy more of the manager’s time and resources, slowing down important work processes (Chou et al., 2005). Managers might also see these followers as lacking understanding of the pressures and demands associated with the leadership role. As a result, leaders are expected to see these followers as less supportive, less motivating, and less effective in contributing to goal attainment.

Hypothesis 4: Voice and upward delegation will mediate the relationship between passive role orientation and leaders’ perceived follower support, leader motivation, and leader perceptions of follower contribution to goal attainment.

Methods

Sample and procedure

Survey data for this study were collected from a large internet company in China. Employees and their managers were solicited from a number of different work areas, including technical, administrative, sales, and service functions. Our conversation with the company’s management team regarding the culture of the organization and nature of work processes confirmed that this was a good setting for the present study given that manager–subordinate partnership was important in meeting organizational goals. The management team also conveyed that there was variation in the extent to which employees voiced suggestions and ideas, and even delegated up to their managers. We believe this organizational environment is generalizable both to other Asian countries, as well as organizations around the world. Specifically, this organization exists in a dynamic environment and serves an industry that changes regularly. Like many other organizations, the company depends on good partnerships and sharing of ideas to thrive. Although the underlying national culture may be different from countries in the West, we believe that the nature of the organization itself is highly generalizable.

Data were collected over three time periods separated by three week intervals to reduce the likelihood of single-source biases distorting any of the relationships tested in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003). At Time 1, 1506 employees were invited to complete an online survey on followership role orientations and demographic information. A total of 1,112 usable responses were collected (73.8%). At Time 2 (three weeks later), those 1,112 participating employees were invited to complete a second survey on their voice and upward delegation behaviors. A total of 475 responses were collected (42.7%). At Time 3 (three weeks after Time 2), 61 supervising managers were invited to rate these 475 employees on the three outcome variables. Forty-two managers responded, yielding a response rate of 68.9%.

In addition to temporal separation of measures, our survey design incorporated one item to test for insufficient effort responding (see Huang et al., 2012). Data from the online survey generator was also evaluated to identify outliers in “total time to complete the survey.” Both methods assisted in identifying respondents who were not paying proper attention to survey items and thus reduce potential response bias. In addition, we compared respondents who completed only time 1 measures to those completing both time 1 and time 2 and found no significant differences in their age, gender, organizational tenure, or dyad tenure. These results add confidence that our data were representative and not subject to response bias. The final sample consisted of 306 employees and 42 managers. Among the 306 employees, 81 were female (26.5%), with an average age of 32.3 years and average organizational tenure of 4.6 years. Among the 42 managerial respondents, nine were female (21.4%), with an average age of 38.2 years and average organizational tenure of 7.5 years. The average dyad tenure between managerial and employee respondents was 3.1 years.

Measures

One of the authors who is bilingual in Mandarin and English translated all survey-related materials from English into Chinese. This was followed with back-translation (Brislin et al., 1973) to ensure that the English and Chinese versions of the survey instructions and measures were accurately translated. Unless otherwise specified, study variables used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). All survey items are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Factor loading of study variables via confirmatory factor analysis.

Scales and items	Factorloading
Co-production orientation
Followers should be on the lookout for suggestions they can offer to superiors.	.75
Followers should proactively identify problems that could affect the organization.	.82
As part of their role, followers must be willing to challenge superiors’ assumptions.	.83
Followers should be proactive in thinking about things that could go wrong.	.84
Followers should communicate their opinions, even when they know leaders may disagree.	.77
Passive role orientation
At the end of the day, followers cannot be held accountable for the performance of a unit.	.88
Being a follower means that you don't have to think about changing the way work gets done	.83
Followers do not have to take on much responsibility for thinking about how things get done.	.86
Because one is a follower, she/he does not have to worry about being involved in decision making.	.93
Voice behavior
I speak up to my manager and encourage others to get involved in issues that affect the work environment.	.78
I develop and make recommendations to my manager concerning issues that affect my work.	.78
I speak up to my manager with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.	.80
I keep well-informed about issues where my opinion might be useful to my manager.	.74
I communicate my opinions about work issues to my supervisor even if my manager may disagree with me.	.73
I get involved with my manager in issues that affect the quality of work life.	.72
Upward delegation
How often do you pass problems along to your manager rather than taking care of them on your own?	.84
How often do you pass responsibility for problems along to your manager?	.86
How often do you bring your manager solutions along with problems? (R)	.88
How often do you expect your manager to take care of your problems?	.89
Perceived follower support
As a follower, this person strongly considers my goals and values.	.82
As a follower, this person cares about my well-being.	.82
As a follower, this person is available to help when I have a problem.	.67
As a follower, this person is willing to help me perform my job to the best of his/her ability.	.80
As a follower, this person cares about my general satisfaction at work.	.84
Leader motivation
This subordinate motivates me as a leader.	.88
This subordinate makes my work as a leader meaningful.	.87
This subordinate makes me feel effective as a leader.	.83
Follower contribution to goal attainment
The performance of the work unit has been enhanced.	.85
Positive changes have occurred.	.85
Change-oriented efforts have succeeded.	.85
The goals of leadership have been attained.	.87

Co-production orientation. Co-production orientation was measured with Carsten and Uhl-Bien’s (2012) 5-item scale (α = .90) assessing the extent to which individuals believe that the follower role involves partnering with leaders to identify and solve problems, make decisions, identify opportunities for change, and constructively challenge the leader when necessary (see items in Table 1). Instructions asked respondents to think about their beliefs regarding the followership role relative to that of leaders in organizations, and respond to each item using a 6-point scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 6 = “strongly agree”.

Passive orientation. Passive followership orientation was measured with four items (α = .93) written for this study. Using the theoretical work advanced by Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) and the qualitative findings of Carsten et al. (2010), items were developed that target individual beliefs that the followership role involves being passive, deferent, and lacking responsibility/accountability.

Given that items measuring passive orientation were written for this study, pilot study data were collected to ensure reliability, and nomological validity against the co-production scale. Specifically, we collected data on passive and co-production orientation from a cross-section of 152 working adults in the US. Results indicate that the passive orientation scale (α = .82) and the co-production orientation scale (α = .75) demonstrate good reliability. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results suggest that the passive orientation items all loaded on a single factor. In addition, a test of the measurement model with both passive and co-production orientation using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) shows that the 2-factor model adequately fit the data (χ² (26) = 45.88, comparative fit index (CFI) = .95, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .93, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07; item loadings ranged from .60 to .88). The two scales correlate at r = −.23, p < .01.

Voice behavior. Voice was measured with Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 6-item scale (α = .89). A sample item was: “I speak up to my manager with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures.”

Upward delegation. Upward delegation was measured with four items (α = .92) developed from theory on downward delegation (Bass, 1990; Yukl, 1998), as well as definitions and descriptions of upward delegation (Whittaker, 2011). The primary behaviors involved in delegation include passing decision-making power, authority, and responsibility from a superior to a subordinate (Bass, 1990). Reversing this construct, upward delegation measures the extent to which the subordinate passes responsibility for decision-making and problem solving up to the manager. A sample item is: “How often do you pass problems along to your manager rather than taking care of them on your own?” (1 = “never” to 5 = “always”).

Perceived follower support. Perceived follower support was measured with Eisenberger et al.’s (2002) 5-item scale (α = .89). To assess manager perceptions of follower support, items were modified to capture manager’s perception of the follower’s willingness to perform when needed, support the leader’s initiatives and the extent to which followers cared about the leader’s well-being.

Leader motivation. Leader motivation was measured with a 3-item scale (α = .89) developed from previous literature and general measures of employee motivation (Barbuto and Scholl, 1998). This scale captures the extent to which a leader feels motivated by his/her follower. A sample item is: “This employee motivates me as a leader.”

Contribution to goal attainment. Leaders’ perceptions of follower contribution to goal attainment was measured by modifying four items from Avolio and colleagues leadership effectiveness scale (Avolio and Bass, 1991; Avolio et al., 1991). Items were modified to reflect leader perceptions of follower contributions to leadership and work unit goals (α = .92). Managers were instructed to think about the follower named in the survey and respond by indicating whether he or she was productive or counterproductive to meeting work outcomes (on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = “highly counterproductive to outcomes” to 5 = “highly productive to outcomes”). A sample work outcome is: “The performance of the work unit has been enhanced.”

Given that leader outcomes have not been investigated in previous research, a second pilot study was conducted to assess the measurement validity of the outcome variables. Fifty-six managers from a long-term care organization in the southeastern US were asked to rate their subordinates on contribution to goal attainment (α = .98), perceived follower support (α = .95), and leader motivation (α = .90). Ratings were provided for a total of 201 subordinates. A series of CFAs were run to test the measurement validity of these variables. Results show that the hypothesized three-factor model demonstrated good fit with the data (Hu and Bentler, 1999: χ²(51) = 65.45, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .04, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .02). This model fits the data better than all alternative models including a model combining follower contribution to goals and leader motivation (χ²(53) = 451.56, CFI = .86, TLI = .82, RMSEA = .19, SRMR = .18); and a model combining perceived follower support and leader motivation (χ²(53) = 162.58, CFI = .96, TLI = .95, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .04).

Control variables. Prior research demonstrates that employees with greater tenure are likely to have more autonomy and be more capable of operating without strong reliance on the leader (Mayseless and Popper, 2007; Thomas et al., 2010). Additionally, research on dyad tenure suggests that it may be related to how likely followers are to speak up to their managers and involve themselves in the leadership process (Maslyn and Uhl-Bien, 2001). Based on these findings, we controlled for employee age, sex, organizational tenure, hierarchical level, and dyad tenure with the manager in our analyses.

Analytic strategy

Prior to testing the proposed hypotheses, we evaluated the measurement validity of the study variables and our proposed measurement model via a series of CFAs using Mplus 6.12 (Muthén and Muthén, 2010). Given the complexity of our model with multiple mediators and outcome variables, we then utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to provide an integrative estimate of the hypothesized relationships. Since our subordinate data are nested within managers, we first establish that our data do not violate the assumption of independence of observation. Consistent with prior studies using nested data (e.g., Zhang and Bartol, 2010), we conducted one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine whether significant differences in the leader outcomes measured in our sample could be attributed to managers’ rating patterns. ANOVA tests reveal that none of the three leader-rated outcome variables, leader’s perceived follower support (F = .574, p = .983), leader motivation (F = 1.290, p = .123) and followers’ contribution to goal attainment (F = .981, p = .508), were adversely affected by non-independence. Therefore, we proceeded with individual-level SEM to estimate our proposed structural model. To test our mediation hypotheses, we followed Preacher and Hayes’ (2004) approach of testing the significance of indirect effects in a mediation model. We used the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon et al., 2007) to estimate the significance of the indirect effects and construct 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Hypothesized measurement model testing

We examined the hypothesized 7-factor measurement model against a series of more constrained models where two or more factors were forced to load together (see factor loadings in Table 1). Results demonstrate that the hypothesized 7-factor model fit the data significantly better than all other alternative models. The results of the 7-factor hypothesized model produced fit indices that were all within acceptable range (Hu and Bentler, 1999: χ²(413) = 973.572, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .04). Tests of alternative models where two or more constructs were forced to load together (i.e., follower support and leader motivation) did not produce significantly better fit than the baseline 7-factor model as evidenced by the significant increase in Chi-squared: χ²(419) = 1527.343, CFI = .84, TLI = .82, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .08; Δχ²(6) = 553.771, p < .01. We thus retained the hypothesized 7-factor model and proceeded to hypothesis testing.

Structural model estimation and hypotheses testing

Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations between study variables are reported in Table 2. When conducting SEM, we first estimated the hypothesized full mediation model. As reported in Table 3, the hypothesized structural model produced acceptable fit with the data (Hu and Bentler, 1999): χ²(446) = 1027.092, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .05. As a next step, we tested three alternative structural models (see Table 3): a partial-mediation model testing direct relationships linking the two role orientation variables with the three leader outcome variables; a partial mediation model testing direct relationships linking only co-production orientation and leader outcomes; and a partial mediation model testing direct relationships linking only passive role orientation and leader outcomes. Results of the chi-squared difference tests show that none of the alternative models produced significantly better fit than the hypothesized full mediation model (see Table 3). Therefore, based on the rule of parsimonious model estimated in SEM (see Bentler, 1990 and Hu and Bentler, 1999), we retained the hypothesized full mediation model, consistent with our theorizing.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of study variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Age	–
2. Sex	−.01	–
3. Organizational tenure	.60**	−.08	–
4. Dyad tenure	.42**	−.08	.68**	–
5. Hierarchical level	.72**	.14*	.35**	.35**	–
6. Co-production orientation	.07	−.06	.06	−.02	.12*	(.90)
7. Passive role orientation	−.09	.10	−.09	−.06	−.06	−.43**	(.93)
8. Voice behavior	.08	.05	.09	.07	.10	.40**	−.37**	(.89)
9. Upward delegation	−.03	.08	−.05	.02	−.04	−.48**	.37**	−.40**	(.92)
10. Perceived follower support	.05	.01	.05	.04	.03	.30**	−.24**	.40**	−.35**	(.89)
11. Leader motivation	.02	−.03	.02	.03	.02	.22**	−.22**	.37**	−.35**	.22**	(.89)
12. Contribution to goalattainment	.01	−.07	.10	.05	.03	.28**	−.20**	.37**	−.44**	.27**	.26**	(.92)
Mean	32.30	1.74	4.55	3.13	2.64	4.61	3.05	3.72	2.80	3.51	3.57	3.64
SD	4.63	.44	2.48	1.41	.70	1.04	1.14	.85	1.03	.93	1.03	.92

SD: standard deviation.

N = 306. Gender was coded as 1 = female, 2 = male.

*p < .05. **p < .01, two tailed test.

Table 3.

Comparison of structural models using structural equation modeling.

Model	Description	χ ²	df	Δχ²	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	SRMR
Baseline	Hypothesized full-mediation model	1027.092	446		.92	.91	.07	.05
Alternative
Model 1	Partial-mediation model	1024.698	440	−2.394	.92	.90	.07	.05
Model 2	Direct relationships linking co-production orientation with three leader outcomes	1025.646	443	−1.446	.92	.91	.07	.05
Model 3	Direct relationships linking passive role orientation with three leader outcomes	1026.024	443	−1.068	.92	.91	.07	.05

χ²: chi-square; df: degree of freedom; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual.

N = 306.

We report path coefficients estimated from SEM in Figure 1. Hypothesis 1 predicted that (a) co-production orientation would be positively, and (b) passive role orientation would be negatively, associated with voice. The SEM results show that co-production orientation was positively associated with voice (β = .33, p < .01) and passive role orientation was negatively associated with voice (β = −.44, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 1a and 1b were both supported.

Figure 1.

Proposed model of follower role orientation, upward interactions with leaders, and leader outcomes.

Hypothesis 2 stated that (a) co-production orientation would be negatively and (b) passive orientation would be positively, associated with upward delegation. As shown in Figure 1, the SEM results indicate a significant negative relationship between co-production orientation and upward delegation (β = −.44, p < .01) and a significant positive relationship between passive orientation and upward delegation (β = .20, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2a and 2b were both supported.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that voice and upward delegation would mediate the relationship between co-production orientation and the three leader outcomes. Following the mediation estimation approach advanced by Preacher and Hayes (2004), we first examined the effect size and the significance of the relationships linking the two mediators (i.e., voice and upward delegation) with the three leader outcome variables (i.e., perceived follower support, leader motivation, and follower contribution to goal attainment). We then used the PRODCLIN program (MacKinnon et al., 2007) to determine the significance of the indirect effects mentioned above. As summarized in Table 4, the indirect effects of co-production orientation on perceived follower support (ρ = .115, 95% confidence interval (CI) .056, .174), leader motivation (ρ = .103, 95% CI .047, .159), and follower contribution to goal attainment (ρ = .084, 95% CI .033, .135) via followers’ voice behavior were all significant. Similarly, co-production orientation had significant indirect effects through followers’ upward delegation on all three leader outcomes: perceived follower support (ρ = .108, 95% CI .048, .169), leader motivation (ρ = .113, 95% CI .052, .174), and follower contribution to goal attainment (ρ = .163, 95% CI .097, .229). Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.

Table 4.

Summary of the size and the significance of estimated indirect effects.

	Co-production orientation						Passive role orientation
	Voice behavior			Upward delegation			Voice behavior			Upward delegation
	Effect size	95% CI		Effect size	95% CI		Effect size	95% CI		Effect size	95% CI
	Effect size	LB	UB	Effect size	LB	UB	Effect size	LB	UB	Effect size	LB	UB
Perceived followersupport	.115	.056	.174	.108	.048	.169	−.088	−.141	−.035	−.051	−.089	−.012
Leader motivation	.103	.047	.159	.113	.052	.174	−.079	−.129	−.029	−.053	−.092	−.013
Contribution togoal attainment	.084	.033	.135	.163	.097	.229	−.064	−.108	−.020	−.076	−.126	−.027

CI: confidence interval; LB: lower bound; UB: upper bound.

N = 306. The confidence intervals of all indirect effects reported were assessed using program PRODCLIN (MacKinnon et al., 2007).

Hypothesis 4 proposed that voice and upward delegation would mediate the relationship between passive orientation and the three leader outcomes. We followed the same procedures described above to estimate the effect size and the significance of the indirect effects. As summarized in Table 4, the indirect effects of passive orientation on perceived follower support (ρ = −.088, 95% CI −.141, −.035), leader motivation (ρ = −.079, 95% CI −.129, −.029), and follower contribution to goal attainment (ρ = −.064, 95% CI −.108, −.020) via followers’ voice behavior were all significant. Similarly, passive orientation had significant indirect effects through followers’ upward delegation on all three leader outcomes: perceived follower support (ρ = −.051, 95% CI −.089, −.012), leader motivation (ρ = −.053, 95% CI −.092, −.013), and follower contribution to goal attainment (ρ = −.076, 95% CI −.126, −.027). Hypothesis 4 was therefore supported.

Discussion

Leadership research has traditionally assumed a leader-centric focus, resulting in a lack of research on followership. While attempts are being made to rectify this problem (Collinson, 2006; Dasborough et al., 2009; Howell and Shamir, 2005; Kark and Van Dijk, 2007; Leroy et al., 2015; Sy, 2010), empirical investigation of followership—the nature and impact of followers and following in the leadership process (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014)—is still scarce. Our study helps advance empirical understanding of followership theory by investigating two types of followership role orientation, co-production orientation and passive orientation, and analyzing their relationship with leader outcomes as mediated by voice and upward delegation.

Consistent with our hypotheses, analyses show that followers with a stronger co-production orientation are more likely to speak up to the leader with their ideas and suggestions while less likely to pass along problems to the leader. Followers with a stronger passive orientation, on the contrary, are less likely to voice their ideas and concerns to their leader, while more likely to pass the problems they encounter to their leader. We also found that voice and upward delegation mediated the relationship between both followership orientations and perceived follower support, leader motivation, and contribution to goal attainment. Analyses of the relationships showed that managers viewed the increased voice and reduced upward delegation associated with co-production orientation as supportive, motivating and effective in contributing to goal attainment. The upward delegation and reduced voice associated with passive orientation were perceived as less beneficial to the leader. In this particular organization, where the accomplishment of goals depends on manager-subordinate partnership, it appears that leaders respond more favorably to followers with a co-production orientation who were engaged and involved.

Theoretical implications

Although theoretical views of effective followership as active, engaged, and “hands-on” followers who help leaders advance the mission of the organization are increasing in the literature (Carsten et al., 2010; Chaleff, 2003; Dvir and Shamir, 2003; Kellerman, 2013; Kelley, 1992), empirical evidence has been lacking. Our findings support this view by demonstrating that followers with a co-production orientation voice and solve problems in a way that makes their managers feel more supported, motivated and effective in attaining goals. Conversely, managers perceive followers with a passive orientation as less supportive, motivating, and beneficial to goal attainment due to their reduced voice and increased upward delegation. A key theoretical implication of this finding is that perhaps the voice literature, which has shown mixed results regarding leader responses to voice (Burris, 2012; Burris et al., 2013), could benefit from framing in followership theory and, in particular, the greater context followership role orientation provides regarding the motivation and intent behind follower voice behavior.

In general, our findings point to the need for much more theory and research regarding the ways in which followers engage more (and less) effectively with leaders. A question raised by our findings is whether co-production always translates into positive outcomes for the leader, or whether this depends on other factors. For example, can followers go too far in co-producing leadership? What type of skill is associated with enacting a co-production orientation—i.e. do co-producing followers need greater interpersonal sensitivity (Hall and Bernieri, 2001) to effectively enact this style?

Our findings also point to the need for more theory and research on passive orientation. Are these approaches ever beneficial to leaders, and if so, when? New insight can be provided into these issues by accounting for contextual conditions related to followership enactments. Although not investigated here, it is possible that leaders with a more autocratic style, or climates that are more hierarchical and rigid, would greatly appreciate more passive followers. Carsten and colleagues (Carsten et al., 2010; Carsten and Uhl-Bien, 2012) suggest that leadership style, empowerment climate, and autonomy could all be moderators of the relationship between followership orientations and behavior. Thus, further theoretical development is needed regarding context as an important boundary condition in how followership orientations and behaviors are perceived by leaders.

Parker (2007) notes that there may be many different types of role orientations. As organizations continue to face changing environments, hyper-competition, and global presence (Küpers and Weibler, 2008), the roles of leaders and followers must also expand and evolve (Hirschhorn, 1990; Parker et al., 1997). Our research examined the two followership orientations that have received the most theoretical attention, however future theory building is needed in this area. For example, some followers may endorse a “political,” or “ingratiating,” orientation based on the belief that followers need to flatter and serve the leader’s ego to succeed (Kipnis and Vanderveer, 1971). Others could endorse a “non-following” orientation (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014), whereby they believe that followers should reject the leader’s influence and authority, and safeguard themselves from a leader’s manipulation (Weitman, 1962). Such beliefs may drive a follower to resist the leader’s directives, question the leader’s motives, and thwart the leader’s progress.

Similarly, Parker (2007) notes that role orientations are shaped by environment over time. Thus it is possible that the longer one works in a specific context, the more their role orientations will incorporate elements of that context. Although the purpose of our study was not to examine change in role orientations over time, future research should investigate how contextual variables are associated with the development and maintenance of followership orientations. For example, Carsten et al. (2010) found that some followers had role schema and orientations that were not in sync with their work environment. An important question is whether role orientations evolve to match the environment, or whether incongruence between role orientations and environment cause a follower to exit?

Our research advances theory on leader perceptual and motivational outcomes, but other leader outcomes should also be considered. Outcomes such as stress and wellbeing of leaders, or at the more extreme form, leader burnout (Seltzer et al., 1989), could offer a more complete understanding about how leaders respond to followership. Additionally, followership theory would benefit from future research demonstrating the relationship between followership and “hard” leadership outcomes (i.e., objective performance measures). Such findings would more fully demonstrate the impact, and importance, of followership on leadership and organizational outcomes. Finally, future research on followership may benefit from incorporating more variables measuring the process of leaders and followers working collaboratively to create leadership. This effort not only benefits the larger field of leadership research, but addresses concerns raised by Shamir (2007) and Ford and Harding (2015: 12) that followership research could potentially “repeat the mistakes of the first century of leadership theory” by being too followership focused.

Practical implications

Discussions of leadership and organizational behavior are heavily skewed toward what leaders can do for followers. Our research demonstrates the importance of also considering what followers can do for leaders. A clear practical implication of our investigation is the need for organizations to pay more attention to how followers can effectively engage with managers to co-produce leadership and its outcomes (Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien, 2012; Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien and Ospina, 2012). Most organizations, however, still approach leadership development from a leader-centric perspective and followership from a passive perspective (Kellerman, 2013), as evidenced by the clear priority placed on developing leaders and the lack of attention given to teaching individuals how to be more effective followers.

Followership development would include a focus on how followers can partner with leaders in ways that enhance both leadership and organizational outcomes. Our findings suggest that some followers provide support to leaders by identifying problems along with solutions, and speaking up with new ideas for projects or changes—all with the intent of acting as a partner to leaders in attaining mutual goals. These could be considered advanced skills that perhaps more effective followers either naturally know or have learned from their work and life experiences. But there are also skills that can be taught, and if they were developed more broadly in the workplace, that could have tremendous benefit for leaders and organizations.

Our findings show that managers report less support, motivation, and contribution to goal attainment when working with passive followers who engage in upward delegation. A key implication of this finding is that if follower passivity is strong, or extends beyond just one or two followers, managers—and perhaps even organizations—could suffer from reduced levels of leadership effectiveness. A focus on followership development could help alleviate these problems by training subordinates in more effective ways to support their leaders. This is especially important for organizational contexts that thrive on creativity, competition, and those that exist in dynamic environments such as the organization under investigation in the current study. In these contexts, leaders may not be able to “lead” on their own, but rather depend on actively engaged followers for idea generation and decision making.

Overall, followership development would change the focus in leadership development from leadership as the responsibility of the manager to leadership as the responsibility of both leaders and followers engaging effectively to meet important objectives. It could do this by providing opportunities that allow both managers and subordinates to better understand followership orientations and how they affect followership behavior in more and less effective ways. Feedback on followership orientation could aid in the understanding of why followers engage in the behaviors they do, and why leader–follower relationships are perhaps not as effective as they could be.

Limitations

While our research carries several strengths, it is not without limitations. First, the nascent state of followership research means that few validated measures are in existence to test followership theory (Leroy et al., 2015; Sy, 2010). Therefore, several of the scales used in testing our hypothesized model were developed or adapted for this study. Although items were based on theory and both reliability and validity were demonstrated using pilot studies, future research should conduct further testing and refinement of these followership scales. Future research would also benefit from the study of a broader range of followership behaviors, such as constructive and dysfunctional resistance (Tepper et al., 2006), sabotage (Giacalone and Knouse, 1990), or passive and active dissent (Kassing, 1998).

Second, given that this is one of the first explorations of the study variables, research is needed to further investigate control variables associated with role orientations and behaviors. In the present study, none of the demographic control variables proved to be significant predictors of role orientations or behaviors. Personality variables (e.g., self-efficacy) might serve as better controls for explaining variance in role orientations, behaviors or outcomes (Parker et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2010).

Finally, we tested our theoretical model using a sample derived from an organization in China, which could limit its generalizability to other cultural contexts. Interestingly, however, our hypotheses addressing co-production and passive orientations developed largely from western perspectives were supported in the Chinese context. Indeed, previous research has also suggested that voice behavior and active engagement are reported widely in Chinese samples (Liang et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2017). That said, more research is needed to investigate questions of the role of national culture in followership role orientations, behaviors, and outcomes. For example, cultural differences around power distance or uncertainty avoidance may influence different beliefs about the follower role (Kelley, 2008).

Conclusion

Followers have long been recognized as essential to leaders and leadership. Despite this, the study of followership and how leaders respond to different followership approaches has received little attention in leadership and organizational research. By demonstrating the differential relationship between followership role enactments and important leader outcomes, we bring attention not only to the need to better understand the varying ways in which followers can enact their roles, but also the need to include leader outcome variables as a key focus of interest for leadership and followership research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant #71371013).

Footnotes

Author biographies

Melissa K Carsten is an Associate Professor of Management at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina. Dr Carsten received her PhD in Organizational Psychology at Claremont Graduate University. Her research seeks to understand how followers’ role beliefs and behaviors affect leaders and leadership processes in organizations, and how followers can work with leaders to form effective partnerships. Dr Carsten has written several book chapters on leadership and followership, and has published her research in referred journals such as The Leadership Quarterly, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organization Management Journal, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and Organizational Dynamics. Dr Carsten has also consulted for both public and private organizations to build leadership development programs and conduct culture change initiatives.

Mary Uhl-Bien is the BNSF Endowed Professor of Leadership in the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University (TCU). She has been a Visiting Scholar in Australia, Sweden, Portugal, and Spain. Mary’s research focuses on complexity leadership, relational leadership, and followership, and has appeared in such journals as Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, and The Leadership Quarterly. Her papers on complexity leadership theory and followership theory have been recognized with best paper awards, and she is senior editor of the Leadership Horizons series for Information Age Publishing.

Lei Huang is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Raymond J. Harbert College of Business at Auburn University. He received his PhD in Management from University of Nebraska-Lincoln. His current research focuses on leadership, proactive and prosocial behaviors, and the dark side of personalities and workplace behaviors. His research has been published in journals such as Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of Management.

References

Avolio

Bass

(1991) The Full Range Leadership Development Programs: Basic and Advanced Manuals. Binghamton, NY: Bass, Avolio and Associates.

Avolio

Yammarino

Bass

(1991) Identifying common methods variance with data collected from a single source: An unresolved sticky issue. Journal of Management 17(3): 571–587.

Baker

(2007) Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 14(1): 50–60.

Barbuto

Scholl

(1998) Motivation sources inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports 82(3): 1011–1022.

Bass

(1990) Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bateman

Crant

(1993) The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior 14(2): 103–118.

Benson

Hardy

Eys

(2016) Contextualizing leaders’ interpretations of proactive followers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 37(7): 949–966.

Bentler

(1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 238–246.

Bjugstad

Thach

Thompson

et al. (2006) A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 7(3): 304–319.

10.

Blom

Alvesson

(2014) Leadership on demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of managerial leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management 30(3): 344–357.

11.

Brislin

Lonner

Thorndike

(1973) Cross-cultural Research Methods. New York, NY: Wiley.

12.

Burris

(2012) The risks and rewards of speaking up: Managerial responses to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal 55(4): 851–875.

13.

Burris

Detert

Romney

(2013) Speaking up vs. being heard: The disagreement around and outcomes of employee voice. Organization Science 24(1): 22–38.

14.

Carsten

Harms

Uhl-Bien

(2014) Exploring historical perspectives of followership: The need for an expanded view of followers and the follower role. In: Lapierre

Carsten

(eds) Followership: What is it and Why do People Follow? Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 3–26.

15.

Carsten

Uhl-Bien

(2012) Follower beliefs in the co-production of leadership: Examining upward communication and the moderating role of context. Journal of Psychology/Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie 220(4): 210–220.

16.

Carsten

Uhl-Bien

West

et al. (2010) Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly 21(3): 543–562.

17.

Chaleff

(2003) The Courageous Follower: Standing up to and for our Leaders. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishing.

18.

Chen

Aryee

(2007) Delegation and employee work outcomes: An examination of the cultural context of mediating processes in China. Academy of Management Journal 50(1): 226–238.

19.

Chou

Cheng

Jen

(2005) The contingent model of paternalistic leadership: Subordinate dependence and leader competence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.

20.

Collinson

(2006) Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly 17(2): 179–189.

21.

Courpasson

Dany

(2003) Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic hybrids. Organization Studies 24(8): 1231–1260.

22.

Crossman

(2011) Conceptualising followership: A review of the literature. Leadership 7(4): 481–497.

23.

Cunha

Rego

Clegg

et al. (2013) The case for transcendent followership. Leadership 9(1): 87–106.

24.

Dasborough

Ashkanasy

Tee

et al. (2009) What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly 20(4): 571–585.

25.

de Cremer

Van Dijk

(2005) When and why leaders put themselves first: Leader behaviour in resource allocations as a function of feeling entitled. European Journal of Social Psychology 35(4): 553–563.

26.

de Vries

van Gelder

J-L

(2005) Leadership and the need for leadership: Testing an implicit followership theory. In: Schyns

Meindl

(eds) Implicit Leadership Theories: Essays and Explorations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 277–304.

27.

Detert

Burris

(2007) Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 869–884.

28.

Dvir

Shamir

(2003) Follower developmental characteristics as predicting transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leadership Quarterly 14(3): 327–344.

29.

Eisenberger

Stinglhamber

Vandenberghe

et al. (2002) Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 565–573.

30.

Fairhurst

Uhl-Bien

(2012) Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly 23(6): 1043–1062.

31.

Farris

Lim

(1969) Effects of performance on leadership, cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction, and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 53(6): 490–497.

32.

Ford

Harding

(2015) Followers in leadership theory: Fiction, fantasy and illusion. Leadership, DOI: 10.1177/1742715015621372.

33.

Giacalone

Knouse

(1990) Justifying wrongful employee behavior: The role of personality in organizational sabotage. Journal of Business Ethics 9(1): 55–61.

34.

Graen

Uhl-Bien

(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.

35.

Grant

Parker

Collins

(2009) Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Personnel Psychology 62(1): 31–55.

36.

Greene

(1975) The reciprocal nature of influence between leader and subordinate. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 187–193.

37.

Hall

Bernieri

(eds) (2001) Interpersonal Sensitivity: Theory and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.

38.

Heckscher

(1994) Defining the post-bureaucratic type. In: Heckscher

Donnellon

(eds) The Post-bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on Organizational Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 14–62.

39.

Herrold

(1977) Two-way influence processes in leader-follower dyads. Academy of Management Journal 20(2): 224–237.

40.

Hirschhorn

(1990) Leaders and followers in a postindustrial age: A psychodynamic view. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 26(4): 529–542.

41.

Hollander

(1992a) The essential interdependence of leadership and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1(2): 71–75.

42.

Hollander

(1992b) Leadership, followership, self, and others. The Leadership Quarterly 3(1): 43–54.

43.

Hollander

(1993) Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In: Chemers

Roya

(eds) Leadership Theory and Practice: Perspectives and Directions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

44.

Hollingsworth

Al-Jafary

ARA

(1983) Why supervisors don't delegate and employees won't accept responsibility. Supervisory Management 28(4): 12–17.

45.

House

Podsakoff

(1994) Leadership effectiveness. In: Greenberg

(ed.) Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 45–82.

46.

Howell

Mendez

(2008) Three perspectives on followership. In: Riggio

Chaleff

Lipman-Blumen

(eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Joessey-Bass, pp. 25–40.

47.

Howell

Shamir

(2005) The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review 30(1): 96–112.

48.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

49.

Huang

Curran

Keeney

et al. (2012) Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology 27(1): 99–114.

50.

Junker

van Dick

(2014) Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 25(6): 1154–1173.

51.

Kark

Shamir

Chen

(2003) The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(2): 246–255.

52.

Kark

Van Dijk

(2007) Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review 32(2): 500–528.

53.

Kassing

(1998) Development and validation of the organizational dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly 12(2): 183–229.

54.

Katz

Kahn

(1966) The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

55.

Kellerman

(2008) Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

56.

Kellerman

(2013) Leading questions: The end of leadership–redux. Leadership 9(1): 135–139.

57.

Kelley

(1992) The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow, and Followers who lead Themselves. New York, NY: Broadway Business.

58.

Kelley

(1998) Followership in a leadership world. In: Spears

(ed.) Insights on Leadership: Service, Stewardship, Spirit, and Servant Leadership. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 170–184.

59.

Kelley

(2008) Rethinking followership. In: Riggio

Chaleff

Lipman-Blumen

(eds) The Art of Followership: How Great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 5–16.

60.

Kipnis

Vanderveer

(1971) Ingratiation and the use of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17(3): 280–286.

61.

Kirkman

Shapiro

(1997) The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review 22(3): 730–757.

62.

Kottke

Sharafinski

(1988) Measuring perceived supervisory and managerial support. Educational and Psychological Measurement 48(4): 1075–1079.

63.

Kuhn

Laird

(2011) Individual differences in early adolescents’ beliefs in the legitimacy of parental authority. Developmental Psychology 47(5): 1353–1365.

64.

Küpers

Weibler

(2008) Inter-leadership: Why and how should we think of leadership and followership integrally? Leadership 4(4): 443–475.

65.

Leroy

Anseel

Gardner

et al. (2015) Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of Management 41(6): 1677–1697.

66.

Liang

Farh

(2012) Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal 55(1): 71–92.

67.

Lipman-Blumen

(2005) The allure of toxic leaders: Why followers rarely escape their clutches. Ivey Business Journal 69(3): 1–8.

68.

Liu

Song

et al. (2017) Why and when leader's affective states influence employee upward voice. Academy of Management Journal 60(1): 238–263.

69.

Locke

(1991) The Essence of Leadership. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

70.

Lowin

Craig

(1968) The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An experimental object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 3(4): 440–458.

71.

McElhatton

Jackson

(2012) Paradox in harmony: Formulating a Chinese model of leadership. Leadership 8(4): 441–461.

72.

MacKinnon

Fritz

Williams

et al. (2007) Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods 39(3): 384–389.

73.

Maslyn

Uhl-Bien

(2001) Leader-member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other's effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(4): 697–708.

74.

Mayseless

Popper

(2007) Reliance on leaders and social institutions: An attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development 9: 73–93.

75.

Mesdaghinia

(2014) Antecedents Andconsequences of Perceived Follower Support . Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertation Publishing.

76.

Mintzberg

(1973) The Nature of Managerial Work. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

77.

Morand

(1996) Dominance, deference, and egalitarianism in organizational interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of power and politeness. Organization Science 7(5): 544–556.

78.

Morrison

(2011) Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals 5(1): 373–412.

79.

Morrison

Milliken

(2003) Speaking up, remaining silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organizations. Journal of Management Studies 40(6): 1353–1358.

80.

Muthén

(2010) Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. Los Angeles, Ca: Muthén & Muthén

81.

Bashshur

(2013) Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly 24(6): 919–934.

82.

Parker

(2000) From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49(3): 447–469.

83.

Parker

(2007) That is my job: How employees’ role orientation affects their job performance. Human Relations 60(3): 403–434.

84.

Parker

Wall

Jackson

(1997) “That’s not my job”: Developing flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal 40(4): 899–929.

85.

Parker

Williams

Turner

(2006) Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 636–652.

86.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

87.

Preacher

Hayes

(2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36: 717–731.

88.

Rost

(1991) Leadership for the Twenty-first Century. London: Praeger.

89.

Rost

(1995) Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(1): 129–142.

90.

Schneider

Gardner

Hinojosa

et al. (2014) Emotional responses of leaders to passive versus active members. Leadership 10(4): 412–436.

91.

Seltzer

Numerof

Bass

(1989) Transformational leadership: Is it a source of more burnout and stress? Journal of Health and Human Resources Administration 12(2): 174–185.

92.

Selznick P (1957) Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

93.

Shamir

(2007) From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the leadership process. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

et al. (eds) Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership. A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. ix–xxxix.

94.

Spreitzer

Kizilos

Nason

(1997) A dimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management 23(5): 679–704.

95.

(2010) What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113(2): 73–84.

96.

Taylor

(1947) Scientiﬁc Management. New York, NY/London: Harper and Row.

97.

Tepper

Uhl-Bien

Kohut

et al. (2006) Subordinates’ resistance and managers’ evaluations of subordinates’ performance. Journal of Management 32(2): 185–209.

98.

Thomas

Whitman

Viswesvaran

(2010) Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 83(2): 275–300.

99.

Tyler

(1997) The psychology of legitmiacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(4): 323–345.

100.

Uhl-Bien

Ospina

(2012) Advancing Relational Leadership Research: A Dialogue among Perspectives. Charlotte, NC: IAP.

101.

Uhl-Bien

Pillai

(2007) The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

et al. (eds) Follower Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 187–210.

102.

Uhl-Bien

Riggio

Lowe

et al. (2014) Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 83–104.

103.

Van Dyne

LePine

(1998) Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal 41(1): 108–119.

104.

Weber

(1968) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology. New York, NY: Bedminster Press.

105.

Weitman

(1962) More than one kind of authoritarian. Journal of Personality 30: 193–208.

106.

Whittaker

(2011) Social defenses and organizational culture in a local authority child protection setting: Challenges for the Munro Review. Journal of Social Work Practice 25(4): 481–495.

107.

Youssef

Luthans

(2007) Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resiliency. Journal of Management 33(5): 774–800.

108.

Yukl

(1998) Leadership in Organizations. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

109.

Yukl

(1999) An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly 10(2): 285–305.

110.

Yukl

(1999) Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(2): 219–232.

111.

Yun

Cox

Sims

(2006) The forgotten follower: A contingency model of leadership and follower self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology 21(4): 374–388.

112.

Zaleznik

(1965) Interpersonal relations in organizations. In: March

(ed.) Handbook of Organizations. Chicago, IL: Rand McNaly & Co, pp. 574–613.

113.

Zhang

Bartol

(2010) Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal 53(1): 107–128.