Followership Theory: Leadership Theory as Only Half the Story
Followership Theory: Leadership as Only Half the Story
¡Hola! Today I want to mention an article that I read as part of the materials belonging to EDDE-804: Leadership and Project Management in Distance Education, taught by Dr. Martha Cleveland-Innes.
This article,"Followership theory: A review and research agenda", was written by Mary Uhl-Bien, Ronald E. Riggio, Kevin B. Lowe, Melissa K. Carsten, and published in 2013. It can be read here.
It is in fact, a thorough literature review of the history of followership studies (as a complement to leadership theories), that summarizes around a hundred years of theory, and that focuses on two theoretical frameworks for the further research in followership in higher education and beyond: a role-based approach, and a constructionist approach. This is the abstract:
"While theory and research on leaders and leadership abound, followers and followership theory have been given short shrift. It is accepted wisdom that there is no leadership without followers, yet followers are very often left out of the leadership research equation. Fortunately this problem is being addressed in recent research, with more attention being paid to the role
of followership in the leadership process. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the followership literature, and from this review, introduce a broad theory of followership into leadership research. Based on our review, we identify two theoretical frameworks for the study of followership, one from a role-based approach (“reversing the lens”) and one from a constructionist approach (“the leadership process”). These frameworks
are used to outline directions for future research. We conclude with a discussion of conceptual and methodological issues in the study of followership theory."
The paper is divided into "leader-centric" theory (Taylor's, trait, behavior, contingency approaches, charismatic and transformational leadership); "follower-centric" perspectives (romance of leadership, implicit leadership theories, social identity theory of leadership); relational views (Lord's connectionist information processing, Weierter's charismatic relationships, Follett's power with, Hollander's relational view, leader-member exchange -LMX-, Klein and House's charisma on fire, Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser's toxic triangle).
Regarding studies of followership, as I mentioned above, it includes role-based views (follower typologies, Carsten's followership role orientation, Sy's implicit followership theories, followers as shapers of leaders' actions, followership behaviors); and constructionist views (DeRue and Ashford's leadership identity, Shamir's co-production, Collinson's post-structuralist identity view, Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien's relational and discursive view.
The authors' proposal for a formal theory of leadership for future studies is centered around two frameworks: "reversing the lens" (role-based approach), and "the leadership process" (constructionist approach").
Since this is my first contact with followership theories, I find this a very useful and enriching theoretical point of view about leadership, as it is normally seen only from the leaders' perspective. In other words, leadership is also a "transaction" between leaders and followers. As a result, leaders can only perform as such and have a positive performance if followers are willing to grant them a leader identity, and if they're willing to comply. Resistance and negative attitudes on the part of followers were also considered in the paper.
Without going any deeper in order to keep this post short, my impression is that followership studies deserve more attention and the followers' "side of the story" should also be contemplated in leadership studies, intervention, and organizational policies, more so in constructivistic environments such as those proposed by the Community of Inquiry framework, and Garrison's "leading collaboratively" (discussed in a three-post series in this blog).
Considering followership theory a fundamental element I intendt to incorporate into my future research, this "other half of the story" goes beyond an alternate version of the "leadership in context" (Cleveland-Innes and Sangrà, 2010). In fact as Uhl-Bien et al warn, "followership theory is not the mirror of leadership theory. It requires new ways of thinking, new types of theorizing, and operationalizing and testing different kinds of variables" (p.100).
To close, I will add here the main conclusions from the article:
"Followership theory offers promise for reinvigorating leadership research in rich new ways. It:
• Moves us beyond leader-centric views to recognize the importance of follower roles, following behaviors, and the leadership process.
• Distributes responsibility for constructing leadership and its outcomes to all players (leaders and followers) in the leadership process.
• Focuses us on identifying more and less effective followership behaviors.
• Brings in context as embedded in the leadership process.
• Recognizes that leadership can flow in all directions, e.g., not only downward but also upward in a hierarchy when subordinates engage in leading behaviors.
• Allows us to understand why and how managers are not always effective leaders (i.e., when they are not able to co-construct leadership with their subordinates).
• Calls for followership development (and followership competencies), not just leadership development" (pp.99-100).
This article,"Followership theory: A review and research agenda", was written by Mary Uhl-Bien, Ronald E. Riggio, Kevin B. Lowe, Melissa K. Carsten, and published in 2013. It can be read here.
It is in fact, a thorough literature review of the history of followership studies (as a complement to leadership theories), that summarizes around a hundred years of theory, and that focuses on two theoretical frameworks for the further research in followership in higher education and beyond: a role-based approach, and a constructionist approach. This is the abstract:
"While theory and research on leaders and leadership abound, followers and followership theory have been given short shrift. It is accepted wisdom that there is no leadership without followers, yet followers are very often left out of the leadership research equation. Fortunately this problem is being addressed in recent research, with more attention being paid to the role
of followership in the leadership process. The purpose of this article is to provide a systematic review of the followership literature, and from this review, introduce a broad theory of followership into leadership research. Based on our review, we identify two theoretical frameworks for the study of followership, one from a role-based approach (“reversing the lens”) and one from a constructionist approach (“the leadership process”). These frameworks
are used to outline directions for future research. We conclude with a discussion of conceptual and methodological issues in the study of followership theory."
The paper is divided into "leader-centric" theory (Taylor's, trait, behavior, contingency approaches, charismatic and transformational leadership); "follower-centric" perspectives (romance of leadership, implicit leadership theories, social identity theory of leadership); relational views (Lord's connectionist information processing, Weierter's charismatic relationships, Follett's power with, Hollander's relational view, leader-member exchange -LMX-, Klein and House's charisma on fire, Padilla, Hogan and Kaiser's toxic triangle).
Regarding studies of followership, as I mentioned above, it includes role-based views (follower typologies, Carsten's followership role orientation, Sy's implicit followership theories, followers as shapers of leaders' actions, followership behaviors); and constructionist views (DeRue and Ashford's leadership identity, Shamir's co-production, Collinson's post-structuralist identity view, Fairhurst and Uhl-Bien's relational and discursive view.
The authors' proposal for a formal theory of leadership for future studies is centered around two frameworks: "reversing the lens" (role-based approach), and "the leadership process" (constructionist approach").
Since this is my first contact with followership theories, I find this a very useful and enriching theoretical point of view about leadership, as it is normally seen only from the leaders' perspective. In other words, leadership is also a "transaction" between leaders and followers. As a result, leaders can only perform as such and have a positive performance if followers are willing to grant them a leader identity, and if they're willing to comply. Resistance and negative attitudes on the part of followers were also considered in the paper.
Without going any deeper in order to keep this post short, my impression is that followership studies deserve more attention and the followers' "side of the story" should also be contemplated in leadership studies, intervention, and organizational policies, more so in constructivistic environments such as those proposed by the Community of Inquiry framework, and Garrison's "leading collaboratively" (discussed in a three-post series in this blog).
Considering followership theory a fundamental element I intendt to incorporate into my future research, this "other half of the story" goes beyond an alternate version of the "leadership in context" (Cleveland-Innes and Sangrà, 2010). In fact as Uhl-Bien et al warn, "followership theory is not the mirror of leadership theory. It requires new ways of thinking, new types of theorizing, and operationalizing and testing different kinds of variables" (p.100).
To close, I will add here the main conclusions from the article:
"Followership theory offers promise for reinvigorating leadership research in rich new ways. It:
• Moves us beyond leader-centric views to recognize the importance of follower roles, following behaviors, and the leadership process.
• Distributes responsibility for constructing leadership and its outcomes to all players (leaders and followers) in the leadership process.
• Focuses us on identifying more and less effective followership behaviors.
• Brings in context as embedded in the leadership process.
• Recognizes that leadership can flow in all directions, e.g., not only downward but also upward in a hierarchy when subordinates engage in leading behaviors.
• Allows us to understand why and how managers are not always effective leaders (i.e., when they are not able to co-construct leadership with their subordinates).
• Calls for followership development (and followership competencies), not just leadership development" (pp.99-100).
Comments
Post a Comment