Followers revealed

Global pressures are not only forcing countries to alter political and economic policies, but they are also creating organizational cultural changes in industries. As part of the sweep of organizational cultural change, the social contract between employees and employers is also changing. Resources, discretion, and responsibility are pushed lower in the organization as managers-also called leaders-seek greater productivity and lower overhead. The push for greater productivity and lower overhead requires a more dynamic employee-employer social contract.

In 1995, Chaleff introduced a new model for the social contract between employers and employees that expanded previous attention on leadership to include a dynamic concept of followership. His theory, courageous followership, received no quantitative exploration with the exception of Dixon and Westbrook (2001).

Beginning with a historical overview, this article represents a progress report on an ongoing research project designed to answer the question, "What is the nature of the influence of organizational level on attributions of followership?" This article also provides an empirical demonstration of the existence of followership in organizations. Since there has been no identifiable attempts to examine the relationship of followership and organization level heretofore, the significant contribution of this study is that it empirically identifies the existence of followership. In doing so, the research validates the existence of followership at all organizational levels.

Background

The social contract between employers and employees has never been static. Before the 19th century, employers and employees operated in the realm of the craft guild. Master artisans lorded over apprentice employees with great autonomy. During the 19th century's industrial revolution, workers with the highest skill levels became supervisors. The 20th century began with a dominant theory of management where "great men" or "industrial barons" controlled the economic destinies of the working class. In the 1920s, managers developed "the one best way," directing employees to complete tasks accordingly. The term leader became a pseudonym for a good manager (Rost, 1991). Followers were thought of as sheep-like subordinates. The end of World War II reintroduced management by fiat as soldiers experienced in chain-of-command models returned to the work force. Management was the domain of the "guys at the top," a mindset resulting in diminishing individual responsibility at lower organizational levels.

By the time baby boomers dominated the work force in the 1970s, the not-my-job mentality was firmly ingrained in the work force. Professional managers responded with flavor-ofthe-day techniques such as quality circles, pay-for-knowledge, self-managed work teams, union representation on boards of directors, and profit sharing. In the 1980s the information era emerged. Managers became inundated with information but continued to manage based on their gut feelings. The search for excellence created an eight-part, psychological, one-best-way management model. The "great man" concept resurfaced with terms like "industrial leader," "organizational leader," and "corporate leader" as corporate managers sought to mitigate the impact of information overload.

As markets turned more global and competition moved from the national to the international level in the 1990s, management became team focused. Combining the needs for organizational leadership and employee involvement in teams resulted in new programs for manipulating the worker-often called subordinate. Empowerment, job enrichment, reengineering, right sizing, doing more with less, and total quality programs existed at every organizational level.

Now the world is complex and fast-paced. Managers no longer have unfettered control of the employee-employer contract. Employees are discipline-loyal, not employer-loyal. Corporate leaders are sought to bring workforce stability in the face of a mobile society.

After all these years and models of social contracts, evidence does not exist of a productive organization of leaders only (Exhibit 1), yet America remains preoccupied with leaders. Intuitively, an all-leader organization is innately untenable. Yet like a promotional right of passage, leadership is a criterion on every employee evaluation. U.S. Rep. Sam Rayburn said, "You cannot be a leader and ask other people to follow you unless you know how to follow, too." Litzinger and Schaefer (1982) recognize that leadership endures only with a spirit of followership and, consistent with Rep. Rayburn, consider followership to be the school for leadership. In the organizational dynamic, Chaleff (1995) describes a new player in the social contract, followers.

What are Followers? The image of followers as sheep unquestioningly and blindly obeying management's command is no longer viable for the competitiveness of a global economy (Boccialetti, 1995; Chaleff, 1995; Kelley, 1991). Followers should be understood and treated as "partners, participants, co-leaders, and co-followers in the pursuit of meaning and productivity in the organization" according to Chaleff (1995).

Followership dominates organizations-there are always more followers than leaders. But preoccupation with leadership hinders considering the nature and importance of the follower and the interrelationship and interdependence required between leaders and followers. With the exception of Chaleff (1995) and Kelley (1991), little followership theory and research has been developed independent of leadership. According to Chaleff (1995) and Kelley (1991), followership stabilizes global competitiveness in the business environment so that employees who are proficient as followers are stewards of themselves and the organization. They therefore contribute to the competitive viability and longevity of the organization consistent with values, norms, and needs of society.

In his description of followers, Chaleff points out that the concept behind follower is not synonymous with subordinate. Followers engage body, mind, soul, and spirit in the commonly held purpose and vision of the organization. Being a subordinate is mechanical or physical; it is being under the control of the superiors as if in some hypnotic trance. Being a follower is a condition, not a position.

Chaleff's (1995) dynamic concept of followership is based on five unique behaviors: responsibility, service, challenge, transformation, and leaving. Chaleff considers these follower behaviors as primary drivers for action within any organization. The courage to assume responsibility-Courageous followers take responsibility for themselves and the organization by demonstrating ownership. In their passion for the purpose and vision for the organization, they create opportunities to maximize their value. They generate new ideas and initiate actions to improve external and internal processes. Courageous followers seek solutions and encourage others to do the same.

The courage to serve-Courageous followers assume new or additional responsibilities to unburden the leader and serve the organization. They show strength of conviction and commitment similar to the leader in pursuing the common purpose. Courageous followers are not soloists, they are team players. If team membership means doing other than the choicest tasks, they are willing. Kelley (1991) sees this as protecting the organizational commons. His research indicates that followers will give to the organization in return for what they might take.

The courage to challenge-Courageous followers will initiate confrontation, when appropriate, to examine the actions of the leader or group. They value harmony but not at the expense of the common purpose or integrity. Kelley (1991) found that followers will be the duty conscience for the leader in maintaining the true course on the journey towards the organization's purpose and vision. They work hard to help the leader with consistency in word and deed, creating trust through their openness, honesty, and courage. Followers expect the same of others.

The courage to participate in transformation-Courageous followers recognize the need for transformation, championing the need for change. They will put themselves on the line, believing others, especially the leader, should do the same (Kelley, 1991). They stay with the leader and group during trials of real change. Courageous followers pursue personal transformation and overcome professional obsolescence by investing in personal development (Crockett, 1981; Manz and Sims; 1980; Kelley, 1991).

The courage to take moral action-Chaleff 's exact wording is "courage to leave:" however, this implies a single act. The concept of taking moral action accounts for self or organizational growth from a courageous follower taking morally based action to protect the follower, the organization, or even the leader. Still, courageous followers will leave if appropriate. Kelley (1991) describes this as"... our duty to obey, our duty to disobey, and our duty to take positive action."

The Problem

Without a clear understanding of followership, managers revert to a transactional management style. In transactional styles, subordinates are made to feel "like jackasses" according to Kelley (1991). That feeling supersedes the honest, good intentions behind empowerment and participative approaches.

To understand the self-worth of followers, tapping into it for organizational improvement and productivity enhancement, the leader and follower must share an understanding of followership requirements and expectations. Theorists and researchers have not provided tools to develop this understanding. By developing followership within an organization, if Chaleff (1995) and others are correct, the competitive posture of the organization will improve.

Hypothesis

Chaleff's theory of followership provides a followership model applicable at all organizational levels. If followership exists-- and it must if leadership exists-then some measure of courageous followership will be evident at all organizational levels. The hypothesis construct is:

H^sub 0^: Courageous followership is evident only at lower organizational levels.

H^sub 1^: Courageous followership is evident at all organizational levels.

Four basic assumptions undergird this study. First, leadership exists in all organizations. While we may not understand leadership, considerable time, money, and effort has been spent to develop, mentor, train and assess employees as leaders. Second, employees spend more time in follower roles than leader roles (Kelley, 1991). This assumption is based on the observation that employees take direction more frequently than they give direction. Third, followership is discernable through demonstrated behaviors. These behaviors are the identifying characteristics of followership. Fourth, observers can attribute followership behaviors to themselves based on experience, reputation, perception, and feedback. Generally, employees within an organization have implicit and heuristic expectations toward peers, subordinates, bosses, and themselves, based on observed and inferred behavior and effects within the organizational context (Calder, 1977).

Methodology

Research was conducted among multi-level technology-based U.S. businesses. Multi-level describes organizations with four or more organizational layers. The target population was engineers and technology workers in technology sectors of government and industry. Data was collected using voluntary participants within organizations having diversity in type, culture, location, and employee/member demographics.

A survey instrument, The Followership Profile (TFP), was developed to collect data from technology workers using a Likert-scaled (1-5) self-assessment of the five courageous follower behaviors. Dixon and Westbrook (2001) reported on the validation process for TFP. Reliability analysis is complete. The Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficient between TFP and definitions of the five behaviors of courageous followership were 0.739 (N = 27). The Spearman Correlation coefficient or Spearman's Rho was calculated to be 0.697 and Chronbach's = 0.969. The coefficients translate to a 0.5 measure of variation, which Ghiselli (1964) credits as an upper limit for predictive effectiveness in behavioral studies.

Results

Completed surveys were received from 304 respondents yielding a 44% response rate; 299 responses were usable. Exhibit 2 shows the response percentage per organizational level. The mean respondent was a college degreed (42% baccalaureate, 35% masters), Caucasian (92%), male (72%), aged 43, who had held their current position in a technology organization for about five years.

Followership was measured using the 61 items in TFP representing components of the five behaviors Chaleff uses to describe courageous followership. Each behavior was represented by at least five items within the instrument. Data was compiled for each behavior by calculating the mean of all items representing each behavior for each respondent. Responses were grouped into four categories: level 4, operation, no levels below; level 3, one level below, a first-line supervisor; level 2, middle manager, multiple levels above and below; and level 1, executive less than three levels above, provided multiple levels existed below. General statistics appear in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3 data shows that the executive level had higher attributions for the five behaviors than other organization levels. The operation level had the lowest attributions for the behaviors. The supervisor and middle manager levels were similar, falling between the operation and executive levels. The variance of attributions varied inversely to organizational level.

Boxplots illustrate the central location and dispersion of data groups. The boxplot, Exhibit 4, provides graphic representation of cumulative responses by organization level, portraying possible difference in means. The plot indicates that for the cumulative followership score-the mean of all five-- behavior means-the executive level showed the highest attributions of followership, while the operation level scored the lowest. The middle manager level and supervisor were similar. Standard deviations increased with lower organization levels. Exhibit 5, graphing the means for each behavior, shows the decrease. The lower mean and higher standard deviation at the operation level would indicate greater variability compared to other organization levels. The indication of difference in means warranted further analysis using non-parametric methods.

The Kruskal-Wallis test was applied to the data to assess the hypothesis that organization level effects followership attributions. The results, shown in Exhibit 6, support the conclusion of a difference in means for four of the five behaviors (alpha = 0.05), rejecting the null hypothesis. The test does not reject the null hypothesis (significance >0.05) for the behavior courage to participate in transformation.

The Kruskall-Wallis test does not indicate which organization levels differ significantly. Conover (1980) recommends conducting a multiple range test to determine which pairs of means differ. Exhibit 7 shows Fisher's least significant difference (LSD) multiple comparison results. The LSD test indicates that middle manager and supervisor levels act similarly, while the executive level and operation level differ from the others. Although the supervisor and middle manager share equivalent mean followership scores, Fisher's LSD did not discriminate between the operation/supervisor pair as for the middle manager/operation pair. The LSD procedure, used in conjunction with the Kruskal-Wallis test, compares means based on ranks. The mean rank for followership score was 158.01 for the middle manager level and 155.69 for the supervisor level. The significance level for the supervisor/operation pair was 0.065. The mean rank difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Therefore the supervisor/operation pairing ranked just above the threshold of significance. Comparatively, the significance level for the middle manager/operation pairing was 0.19. Reviewing associated confidence intervals for the ranks supported identification of the differing pairs shown in Exhibit 7.

For the behavior courage to assume responsibility, chi^sup 2^ shows significant difference between two or more organizational levels. The executive level's mean rating (4.19) for this behavior rated higher than all other organizational level means, which is consistent with the organization's responsibility being vested at the executive level. The executive level's need to assume responsibility includes the organization, its stakeholders, and outside interfaces which it supports (providing jobs, taxes, etc.) and from which it receives support (raw materials, talent, etc.). The operation level rated the lowest mean attribution (3.73), consistent with the premise that the operation level holds the least responsibility for organizational needs and requirements, instead focusing on production tasks. The supervisor (3.94) and middle manager level (3.93) rated statistically the same. The middle manager level assumes responsibility for intraorganizational responsibilities within its narrower circle of influence. The supervisor level assumes responsibility for the production/technology process and direct reports. Each level reflects the situational reality that increasing organizational level requires an increasing need to demonstrate the behavior, courage to assume responsibility.

Exhibit 6 shows that for the behavior courage to serve, the chi^sup 2^ statistic indicates significant difference between two or more of the organizational levels. For the behavior courage to serve, the executive level mean rating (3.84) scored higher than all other organizational level means. This is consistent with the theoretical concept of the executive level serving a broader base in meeting organization, employee, shareholder, owner, community, and regulatory needs, as well as moral expectations. The operation level showed the lowest mean attribution (3.40). The operation level serves only the organization and its constituents. The supervisor level (3.56) and the middle manager level (3.64) fell between the executive and operation levels.

The courage to serve behavior is demonstrated at the executive level when executives serve the needs of the stakeholders through strategies of organizational profitability and longevity, community service, and moral responsibility. These strategies serve other organizational levels to provide continued employment and the foundation for work conduct at all levels. Persons at the middle manager level serve the executive level in providing process status and development as well as resource planning and development. Middle managers also serve the supervisor by proactively serving the organizational commons, as do all levels. Additionally, middle managers who serve provide a buffer for the executive level against exercises of trivial pursuit, regardless of source. Supervisors who serve provide the same function on a more pragmatic perspective. The operation level serves by completing tasks effectively and efficiently while initiating and contributing to improvement needs.

For the behavior, courage to challenge, chi^sup 2^ indicates a statistically significant difference between two or more organizational levels. The executive level mean rating (3.91) read higher than other organizational level means. The executive level holds overall responsibility for competitive strategies to attain and maintain organizational profitability and longevity. Therefore the executive level is wont to challenge the organization as a whole toward peak performance. The remaining levels challenge themselves and those below with corresponding decrease in breadth, depth, need, and opportunity to challenge. As courageous followers, each level challenges levels both above and below to performance excellence. The operation level scored the lowest mean attribution (3.60). The supervisor and middle manager levels showed equivalent means (3.83), falling between the executive and supervisor levels.

Exhibit 6 shows that for the behavior courage to participate in transformation the chi^sup 2^ statistic, 3.882, indicates no statistically significant difference between organizational levels (asymptotic significance 0.274). Though the means are not mathematically equivalent-executive level mean rating, 3.83; middle manager and supervisor mean attribution, 3.78; operation level, 3.66-- the means equal statistically.

Why is the courage to participate in transformation not effected by organizational level? Chaleff's theory does not lend an explanation nor does the collected data support a conclusive answer. The behavior courage to participate in transformation, defined by Chaleff, has two components, personal transformation and organizational transformation. Personal transformation could be universally apparent across the organizational levels. Therefore level is a non-discriminating, independent variable. Respondents agree to the need for courage to participate in personal transformation. The nature of organizational transformation may be so invasive and needed in the organizations participating that organizational level is an indiscriminate variable. No demographic data were collected on the organizational need for structural, cultural, or related organizational attributes and needs. Given social, economic, and political events and trends at the time of data collection, the results seem reasonable.

Exhibit 6 indicates that the behavior courage to leave had a chi^sup 2^ statistic showing a significant difference between two or more of the organizational levels. The executive level mean rating (4.03) scored higher than other organizational level means. This may indicate the executive level's financial ability to support separation from the organization or it could show a stronger moral/ethical support base. The operation level rated the lowest mean attribution (3.65). The supervisor (3.80) and middle manager levels (3.73) both fell between the executive and operation levels.

Conclusions

Follower Behaviors are Measurable. The results of this study indicate that TFP is a useful tool for measuring the behaviors of a courageous follower. Earlier validity analysis combined with the reliability analysis presented here support the TFP as a statistically valid and reliable instrument.

Courageous Followers Exist Within Organizations. The study indicates that the engineer technology worker credits him or herself with at least a moderate level of courageous follower behaviors. The Likert-response categories for TFP assigned the following numerical values to the choices: 1-to little or no extent; 2-to a slight extent; 3-to a moderate extent; 4-to a great extent; and 5-to a very great extent. As can be seen from Exhibit 5 all mean responses were >3 indicating self-recognition of the presence of the behaviors.

Followership is Discernable at all Levels of the Organization. Data for each level indicated that followers exist at each of the organizational levels, i.e., the mean ratings for each level where greater than the Likert scale mid-points. As such, the research results provide support for a universal application of courageous followership, i.e., followership is discernable at all levels of the organizations studied.

Attributions of Followership are Influenced by Organizational Level. The study indicates the attributions of followership are influenced by organizational level, a rejection of the null hypothesis for four of the five behaviors. Analysis fails to reject the null hypothesis for the behavior, courage to participate in transformation. Additionally:

The executive level possesses the highest conceptual understanding and acknowledgment of follower behaviors.

The operation level possesses the lowest conceptual understanding and acknowledgment of follower behaviors.

The supervisor and middle manager levels possess similar levels of understanding and acknowledgment of follower behaviors.

The strong evidence of followership among executives found in the results of this dissertation support Roe's (1989) contention that successful leadership implies a conceptual understanding and acknowledgement of followership. Roe states that leaders must know when and how to lead and when and how to follow. While it is unreasonable to claim, based on this research, that executives achieve their position because of their followership skills, it appears that higher followership competency is part of their skill base. The evidence that the middle manager, supervisor and operation levels have lower attributions of followership behaviors can be indicative of conditions that support promotion of skilled followers to the higher organization level. As promotions occur, the lower organizational level's ranks of followers are decimated of followers for the sake of leadership. This pattern lends credence to a graduate-follower concept of leadership (Litzinger and Schaefer, 1982). Since it is recognized that leadership itself is highly situational, it may also be indicative that the middle manager, supervisor, and operation levels do not afford situational opportunities for demonstrating followership to the extent the executive level does and therefore attributions are lower for those lower levels.

Followership Increases With Level of Hierarchy. Wortman (1982) states that there is no evidence that leader-follower roles are the same at all organizational levels. This research shows that attributions of follower behaviors differ by organizational level and higher levels of attributions are correlated with higher organizational levels. Evidently, organizational leaders are good followers.

Application Opportunities

Organizational Assessments. As stated earlier, corporations traditionally focus on managerial development, not recognizing the follower importance. The theory of courageous followership provides a basis for followership development. TFP provides a tool to assess followership within an organization and establish a base for followership development programs. With TFP, managers now possess the basis for assessing the level of followership within an organization.

Personal Development. When organizations learn how to include an evaluation of followership in performance appraisals, they will have the basis for followership development. Chaleff (1995) recognizes this as he has focused on providing followership training to corporate America and government agencies since publishing his theory. Similar training has been provided to the National Society for Professional Engineers and others as an opportunity for professional development hours based on this research.

Supporting Norms. While training occupies a significant portion of organizational attention, its success depends on structural support. In order to develop followers, organizations must support follower development through appropriate reward mechanisms. Although higher followership resides in higher organizational levels, reinforcing followership as a desired attribute through pay and promotion enhances followership appeal to all organizational levels. One way to make this apparent is making followership a criterion for advancement.

Supporting Structure. The research supports universal application of courageous followership. However, there is still no recognized acceptance of, nor support for, the traditional leader-follower hierarchy (Exhibit 8). Exhibit 9 provides a new construct for conceptualizing leader-follower hierarchical relations in a globally competitive, international economy. It captures the theoretical requirements and research findings for applying followership in organizations by recognizing leaders as followers. By recognizing leaders and followers as the same, participative management and empowerment are augmented by the behaviors identifying courageous followership. When multiplied across related organizations, the potential for effectiveness increases geometrically to span markets. This may prove especially pertinent as labor shortages within high technology organizations grow more critical (Bernstein, 2002). Developing this construct within an organization requires strategies for recruiting and retaining personnel development of a supportive organizational structure.

Recruiting. Recruiting followers means recruiting personnel supportive of the organizational mission and values, not just task-skilled people. The outline of follower attributes provided earlier provides guidance.

Retention. How do you keep followers? Provide a reward system of motivators to support followership. This is soft science, not manipulation. Managers demonstrate appreciation by listening when challenged, accepting constructive criticism, promoting penalty free risk taking without denigrating the rights and passages of responsibility-good and bad. These are not new management skills, but unused.

Personnel Development. As organizations become more participative, boundaries between leaders and followers become less distinct while distances become exaggerated (Gilmore, 1982). Understanding followers and followership as vital to organizations, equivalent to leaders in importance and prominence, requires a definition of followership that is research validated. That definition is now available. The concept of followers must be taken into organizations. Because this is a significant paradigm shift for managers, the work will not be easy. Managers must learn to respect and expect good followership. Learning comes from experience and/or training. Training is required that is case-based, experiential, and effective at explaining and developing followership.

The leader-follower relationship holds potential for innovation when founded on shared values. Followership may be a key ingredient for industry success in the international information age.