Using Implicit Followership Theories to Illustrate Cognitive Schemas: An Experiential Exercise

Abstract

In this article, we outline an experiential exercise designed to teach students about cognitive schemas (what they are, how they are developed, and how they may influence us). Drawing on the literature related to implicit followership theories, the exercise encourages students to explore their perceptions related to the role of followers, thus providing a concrete example via which they can explore the concept of schemas. The exercise was designed in the context of an undergraduate organizational behavior course and has been used on four occasions with success. We describe the learning objectives of the exercise and the steps to run it, provide detailed instructor notes, and offer some supplementary materials (i.e., sample content for class slides). We conclude the article by proposing potential variations of the exercise.

Keywords

implicit followership theories schemas followers experiential exercise

Perception is an important topic incorporated into many organizational behavior (OB) and industrial-organizational psychology courses. Among the concepts related to perception that may be covered in such courses are cognitive schemas, which may be described as mental models that we develop of how things are (e.g., Fiske & Linville, 1980).

To help students learn about schemas—what they are, how they develop, and how they may influence us—we present an experiential exercise centered on implicit followership theories (IFTs), which reflect “individuals’ personal assumptions about the traits and behaviors that characterize followers” (Sy, 2010, p. 73). IFTs therefore represent schemas that individuals have developed, based on a variety of factors, related to followership and contribute to an essential and understudied aspect of the leadership process that affects leader-follower relationships and follower performance (e.g., Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson, 2012). In this exercise, we use IFTs as a concrete example through which to illustrate the notion of cognitive schemas.

Given this focus, the exercise may be incorporated into various undergraduate and graduate OB-related courses (e.g., leadership). The activity was developed in the context of an undergraduate OB course taught by one of the authors at a Canadian university and has been used on four occasions. Overall, the exercise allowed the class to explore the core concepts of the exercise in an engaging way and was well received.

Followership Schemas

IFTs reflect schemas that we have developed related to our perceptions of the role of followers. To examine factors that may contribute to the development of such schemas, we draw on the literature related to both implicit leader and followership theories, which suggests that our schemas of both roles can be influenced by a number of factors.

In particular, several authors highlight the role of one’s experiences (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Lord & Maher, 1991; van Gils, van Quaquebeke, & van Knippenberg, 2010) and socialization (e.g., Epitropaki & Martin, 2004) in the development of IFTs (see also Epitropaki, Sy, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013; Sy, 2010). In addition to these factors, scholars have also examined more specific influences. For example, Keller (2003) suggests that attachment style can affect implicit leadership theory development. Additionally, Harms and Spain (2016) discuss the effects of children’s television shows and stories, using the television cartoon Transformers as an illustrative case, on the formation of implicit theories related to both roles.

Lord and Maher (1991) argue that knowledge structures, which they note “refer to cognitive schemas that are otherwise known as scripts, plans, categories, implicit theories, prototypes, or heuristics” (p. 17), pertaining to leaders can facilitate how we process information related to leadership. They describe how these knowledge structures can affect individuals, for example, with regard to who we perceive to be a leader, the actions and expectations that we associate with leadership, interactions between the leader and the perceiver, as well as the behavior of both leaders and perceivers (Lord & Maher, 1991). Epitropaki et al. (2013) note that the models proposed by Lord and Maher (1991) may be extrapolated to the concept of followership—thus, it can be argued that the effects of the knowledge structures related to leaders, described above, apply to schemas pertaining to followers as well.

Followership Prototypes and Roles

While the extant literature includes several articles that help us develop our understanding of IFTs and their effects, we drew on the research of Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, and McGregor (2010) and Sy (2010) for the materials for this exercise. As such, we focus our discussion on these two studies below.

Sy (2010) conducted a series of studies in which he developed a measure of IFTs and examined their relationships with individual and organizational outcomes. Sy found that the data across his studies were represented by six factors and also found evidence that these factors could be grouped into two higher order factors, reflecting a follower prototype and a follower antiprototype. The former reflects items considered characteristic, or desirable, of followers (i.e., factors labeled industry, enthusiasm, and good citizen), while the latter is composed of less desirable follower characteristics (i.e., factors named incompetence, conformity, and insubordination; see supplementary materials). The results from the study also demonstrated a relationship between both prototypical and antiprototypical characteristics and a number of notable outcomes (e.g., trust in leadership, job satisfaction) (Sy, 2010).

Carsten et al. (2010) interviewed 31 participants in followership positions and investigated how respondents in their study conceptualized followership. Their results identified three different role orientations expressed by participants, who interpreted followership as reflecting passive, active, or proactive roles (see Supplemental Material available online). Carsten et al. (2010) described emergent themes related to each role orientation and highlighted the effects of contextual variables in influencing how people relate to and behave in followership positions—specifically focusing on the climate of the organization and the behavior of the leader.

Present Exercise

The goal of the present exercise is to provide students with an experience that illustrates the concept of cognitive schemas by asking them to reflect on their implicit theories related to followership and to consider different factors that may influence how such schemas develop.

Kolb (2015, p. 49) defines learning as “the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience.” Kolb’s learning cycle outlines the role of four skills in experiential learning—concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (e.g., Kolb, 2015). In an effort to provide students with an opportunity for experiential learning, the present exercise targets the first three skills. More specifically, students rate a series of items as per their conceptualizations of followership and then compare their ratings with those of teammates (concrete experience), reflect on followership schemas and factors that may affect their development (reflective observation), and formulate conclusions that allow them to connect elements learned via the exercise to their understanding of schemas more generally (abstract conceptualization).

Learning Outcomes

At the end of the exercise, students should be able to:

Describe the process by which cognitive schemas form.

Identify and discuss specific factors that may influence the development of follower role schemas.

Reflect on underlying assumptions related to perceptions of followership.

The Exercise

In the exercise, students first rate a series of 21 items (taken from Carsten et al., 2010 and Sy, 2010) as per the degree to which each reflects a follower, using a 7-point scale (1 = extremely inaccurate, 7 = extremely accurate). Using sticky notes, students record the five items that they rated as most and least representative of followers. Next, in small groups, students use these sticky notes to form a collage, creating a visual representation of the highest and lowest rated items, which serves as a basis for a discussion related to members’ conceptualizations of followership and factors that may have contributed to them. Finally, the class reconvenes for a plenary, which functions as the debriefing session of the activity.

Materials

Prior to class, instructors will need to prepare

A presentation of key concepts that students will be asked to apply to the exercise.

Sticky notes: Provide students with two sets of five sticky notes (Color A for highest rated items and Color B for lowest rated items). To minimize the materials required, instructors can cut sticky notes into multiple strips or use different media, such as white boards, for this step.

Visual aids (sample content for slides available as supplemental materials).

Running and Debriefing the Exercise

The steps for running and debriefing the exercise, along with the estimated time required for each, are described in Table 1.

Table 1.

Running the Exercise: Steps and Estimated Time Required.

Step	Objective	Description	Estimated timing
Step 1	Introduction of the theoretical concepts	Overview of core concepts that students will be asked to apply to the discussion of the exercise. For example, in the class taught by one of the authors, some of the concepts covered include an overview of what schemas are and a brief discussion of some factors that can affect how schemas develop (expanded on during the plenary).	Timing required will vary based on the number of concepts covered (likely 30-45 minutes, based on the experience of the authors).
Step 2	Introduction of the exercise (presented to the full class)	Introduce the exercise and provide an overview of the instructions for the first part of the activity (i.e., Step 3).	5 minutes
Step 3	Rating of the items (students complete this step individually)	3.1. Project a slide at the front of the class displaying the 21 items that students will be asked to rate. More specifically, this list includes the 18 items identified by Sy (2010), as well as the three role orientations identified by Carsten et al. (2010)—“has an active role,” “has a proactive role,” and “has a passive role” (available in the supplemental materials). We have found it useful to number the items on this slide, so that students may refer to specific items during the discussion period that follows. 3.2. First, ask students to rate the items (whether on a piece of paper or a computer), based on the degree to which each reflects a follower, using a 7-point scale provided on the slide (1 = extremely inaccurate, 7 = extremely accurate). 3.3. Next, ask students to write down their five highest and five lowest rated items on the two sets of sticky notes provided. As noted in the materials section, each student is given 10 sticky notes at the outset of the exercise: 5 of one color (Color A) and 5 of a second color (Color B). Specify which color of sticky notes they should use to record their five highest rated items and which to use to record their five lowest rated items.	10 minutes
Step 4	Reflection questions and creation of a collage (in small groups or, if students prefer, individually)	In this step, students reflect on their highest and lowest rated items, as well as several discussion questions, presented on a new slide. As some students may not be comfortable sharing their ratings with their colleagues, we have found it useful to provide students with the option to work in small groups or alone. 4.1. First, ask students to create a sticky note collage on the surface of your choice (wall, table, etc.). The purpose of the collage is to aggregate the items in a creative manner and provide a visual depiction of how group members view followers. At the same time as working on their collages, ask students to group the sticky notes together based on similar item patterns or themes. For example, if four members agree that “loyal” is one of their highest or lowest rated items, they can cluster these four sticky notes together. This procedure allows group members to see the items that were selected most often and the overall breadth of items selected (suggesting that IFTs are complex and may differ among group members). Relatedly, as students are given different color sticky notes to indicate the items that they rate as most/least representative of followers (Color A and Color B), some groups may find that the same item was rated as highly representative by some members, while assessed as less representative by others. 4.2. Next, ask students to also consider the following three discussion questions: 1. What does followership mean to you? 2. What factors might have influenced your schema about followership (i.e., role schema)? In other words, how do we develop such schemas (how do they form)? 3. When you consider how you rated the items on the slide, what underlying assumptions are present in your responses?	15-20 minutes
Step 5	Plenary/Debriefing (class discussion)	Reconvene for a plenary discussion. The plenary provides students with an opportunity to share their thoughts, observations, and takeaways from the exercise. Instructors can also elaborate on each of the discussion questions and suggest links between course concepts (see the section on Reflection Questions).	20 minutes

Reflection Questions

Students first reflect on three discussion questions (Table 1, Step 4) in small groups before moving to the plenary discussion.

1. What does followership mean to you?

This first question engages students to think about which items were and were not included in their collages. While students discuss this question within their small groups, we do not use it within the plenary (as some participants may be uncomfortable sharing with the class). Instead, it is used as a reflection question that helps students consider why they selected particular items.

Plenary Discussion

To open the plenary, we have found it useful to inquire, “Was it challenging to rate the items?” and “Were there a lot of similarities or a lot of variety in the items within your groups?” which students may then expand on. We then move to the remaining two discussion questions.

2. What factors might have influenced your schema about followership?

In tackling this question, students reflect on factors that may contribute to the development of follower-related schemas. To expand on the discussion, we found it useful to prepare a slide summarizing some of the factors that have been identified in the literature as influencing our implicit theories of followers and/or of leaders (see supplemental materials).

The literature also suggests that contextual factors play an important role in understanding followership (e.g., Benson, Hardy, & Eys, 2016; Carsten et al., 2010; Derler & Weibler, 2014; van Gils et al., 2010). For example, Benson et al. (2016) interviewed 14 leaders (head coaches from a variety of sports) and found that contextual characteristics affected the degree to which proactive follower behavior was perceived to be desirable. Relatedly, research indicates that implicit leadership theories can be influenced by culture (e.g., House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Carsten et al. (2010) propose that schemas related to followership may be affected by culture as well.

3. What underlying assumptions are present?

This question prompts students to reflect on any underlying assumptions that may influence our implicit theories of followers. Schyns, Kiefer, Kerschreiter, and Tymon (2011) published an exercise related to implicit leadership theories, in which they underscore the importance of teaching about such schemas and observe that discussions following their exercise can lead to the identification of previously held assumptions, which we argue applies to the present exercise as well.

To stimulate discussion, instructors may inquire as to whether the manner in which participants rated one or more items rests on the assumption that the follower is working with a good leader. For example, does the degree to which an ideal follower is “loyal” presuppose that the leader is good and/or well intentioned? What if this is not the case? Notably, in discussing associations that can be drawn between implicit leadership and followership theories and ethical leadership, Epitropaki et al. (2013) note that “interestingly, the leader or follower being ethical is not part of the current conceptualizations of implicit leadership and followership” (p. 873).

At this point, it is useful to overview the studies from which the materials were drawn (see supplemental materials).

Finally, to close the session, instructors may ask participants to describe their takeaways from the exercise. It is hoped that these include (but are not limited to) reflections related to the potential complexity of schemas, the many factors that can influence schema development, and the understanding that cognitive representations can change with our experiences.

Variations

Please see the appendix for a discussion of additional concepts related to perception that may be incorporated into the debriefing session, as well as two potential variations of the exercise, in which we suggest (1) how instructors might incorporate implicit leadership theories into the exercise and (2) how the exercise might be modified for online courses.

Conclusion

This exercise was designed to introduce students to cognitive schemas via an experiential activity through which students examine and reflect on schemas related to followership. Drawing on the IFT literature, students rate a series of items (Carsten et al., 2010; Sy, 2010), reflect on their schemas, consider factors that may influence such schemas via group-based and plenary discussions, and generate key takeaways from the activity. Instructors may wish to use it in conjunction with other experiential exercises on followership that help reinforce participant understanding of this concept (e.g., Hurwitz, 2017).

Supplemental Material

SUPPLEMENTAL_MATERIALS_R3 – Supplemental material for Using Implicit Followership Theories to Illustrate Cognitive Schemas: An Experiential Exercise

Supplemental material, SUPPLEMENTAL_MATERIALS_R3 for Using Implicit Followership Theories to Illustrate Cognitive Schemas: An Experiential Exercise by Melanie A. Robinson and John Fiset in Management Teaching Review

Footnotes

Appendix

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Melanie A. Robinson

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at

Notes

References

Benson

A. J.

Hardy

Eys

(2016). Contextualizing leader’s interpretations of proactive leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 949-966. doi:10.1002/job.2077

Carsten

M. K.

Uhl-Bien

West

B. J.

Patera

J. L.

McGregor

(2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015

Derler

Weibler

(2014). The ideal employee: Context and leaders’ implicit followership theories. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35, 386-409. doi:10.1108/LODJ-12-2012-0158

Epitropaki

Martin

(2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293-310. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293

Epitropaki

Martin

Tram-Quon

Topakas

(2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 858-881. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005

Fiske

S. T.

Linville

P. W.

(1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543-557. doi:10.1177/014616728064006

Harms

Spain

S. M.

(2016). Children’s stories as a foundation for leadership schemas: More than meets the eye. In Peus

Braun

Schyns

(Eds.), Leadership lessons from compelling contexts (Monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 8, pp. 301-325). Bingley, England: Emerald Group. doi:10.1108/S1479-357120160000008010

House

R. J.

Hanges

P. J.

Javidan

Dorfman

P. W.

Gupta

(2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hurwitz

(2017). Followership: A classroom exercise to introduce the concept. Management Teaching Review, 2, 281-288. doi:10.1177/2379298117717468

10.

Keller

(2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: An attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 141-160. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00007-9

11.

Kolb

D. A.

(2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

12.

Lord

R. G.

Maher

K. J.

(1991). Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. London, England: Unwin Hyman.

13.

Morin

E. M.

Aubé

Johnson

K. J.

(2015). Psychologie et management [Psychology and management] (3rd ed.). Montreal, QC: Chenelière Education.

14.

Offermann

L. R.

Kennedy

J. K.

Jr. Wirtz

P. W.

(1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1

15.

Piaget

(1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of intellectual development ( T.

Brown

K. J.

Thampy

, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1975)

16.

Schyns

Kiefer

Kerschreiter

Tymon

(2011). Teaching implicit leadership theories to develop leaders and leadership: How and why it can make a difference. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 397-408. doi:10.5465/amle.2010.0015

17.

(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. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001

18.

van Gils

van Quaquebeke

van Knippenberg

. (2010). The X-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 333-363. doi:10.1080/13594320902978458

19.

Whiteley

Johnson

S. K.

(2012). Leaders’ conceptions of followers: Implications for naturally occurring Pygmalion effects. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 822-834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.03.006

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.34 MB