DEFINITIONS OF LEADERSHIP AND FOLLOWERSHIP AND ITS HISTORY PROGRESSION AND PERSPECTIVES

Phuoc D. Nguyen

Abstract

Leadership concepts have been studied thoroughly and vastly in recent decades while followership literatures are still limited. The historical progression of leadership and followership and its perspectives have been described in leadership studies literature. This paper describes definitions of leadership and followership and their multiple meaning and addresses leadership and followership progression as well as leadership and followership perspectives.

Many scholars through historical periods defined leadership and followership concepts, debated on the plentiful meaning of leadership and followership, and contributed to the progression of leadership studies and literature, they also suggest many perspectives of leadership and followership. Leadership and followership definitions need further research to harmonize with leadership and followership progression and perspectives.

Definitions of Leadership and Followership

Leadership and followership definitions are the most fundamental concepts in leadership studies. Numerous definitions of leadership through the historical periods. Bennis, W. (2008) interprets that “According to our definitions of leadership and followership -that is, as states, conditions, or embodiments – it is possible for someone who is not in a position of authority, not a manager or administrator, to lead others by influencing them. It is also possible for a person in a position of authority to lead, but that requires exerting influence without the coercion that could exist as a result of having authority. Finally, it is possible to exert influence and to have someone accept it where both acts are the result of coercion, whether subtle or direct. The latter case is not leadership, but rather controlling, managing, administrating, or directing” (p.49). Bennis’s definition is rare and special in leadership studies literature so far because he defined followership and leadership in three cases. The former case is similar to the definition of Northouse (2016) that is leadership “is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). There is ample support for the claim that a leader should not be interested in achieving a common goal, they should be interested in how to persuade and direct a group of individuals to follow the right directions in light of his/her vision; the manager who has interested in to achieve a common goal through the use of optimal organizational resources which has including human resource. The consensus view seems to be that ‘leadership is an interactive process whereby an individual persuades, and directs an individual or a group of individuals who follows his/her strategic vision and right directions and under his/her influence’. In addition, Northouse has also listed definitions of leadership from scholars and practitioners from 1990 to the 21^st Century as follows:

1990 – 1929: Moore (1927) states that “Leadership was defined as the ability to impress…….. Into the 21^st Century: “Emerging leadership approaches are

         Authentic leadership, in which the authenticity of leaders and their leadership is emphasized;

         Spiritual leadership, which focuses on leadership and utilizes values and a sense of calling and membership to motivate followers;

         Servant leadership, which puts the leader in the role of servant, who utilizes “caring principles” to focus on followers’ needs to help these followers become more autonomous, knowledgeable, and like servants themselves; and

         Adaptive leadership, in which leaders encourage followers to adapt by confronting and solving problems, challenges, and changes”. (Northouse, 2016, p. 4-5)

It is prominent in the literature on leadership studies that an integrative definition of leadership by Winston and Patterson. Research by Winston and Patterson (2006) defines “A leader as one or more people who select, equip, train, and influence one or more follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills and focuses the follower(s) to the organization’s mission and objectives causing the follower(s) to willingly and enthusiastically expend spiritual, emotional, and physical energy in a concerted coordinated effort to achieve the organizational mission and objectives.” (Winston & Patterson, 2006). It is to put forward the claim that it may seem there is little difference between the terms “leader” and “leadership”, a leader is a person who leads a person or a group of people, while leadership is a process that refers to the determinant to lead followers, and because of the title of this paper is ‘An Integrative Definition of Leadership’. In addition, the ‘selects, equips, and trains’ phrase is the responsibility of a manager and it may be similar to a human resource manager’s responsibility but not the responsibility of a leader. Furthermore, in ‘follower(s) who have diverse gifts, abilities, and skills’ words, how does for cases of follower(s) who have not or lack diverse gifts, abilities, and skills? Are these followers, not their leaders? Moreover, the ‘to achieve the organizational mission and objectives’ phrase. Moreover, ‘to achieve the organizational mission and objectives’ phase, we always do ‘implement mission but not to achieve mission, it is suggested that to reach strategic vision; because targets belong to objectives, objectives belong to goals, from functional strategy to business strategy to corporate strategy, respectively; it may to be ‘to reach the organizational strategic vision and to achieve organizational goals’.

Engstrom (1976) defines “Leadership is an act or behavior required by a group meet its goals, rather than a condition. It is an act by ether word or deed to influence behavior toward a desire end” (p. 20). Having a few definitions of followership in comparison with many different definitions of leadership. Thom-Otuya (2012) defines followership as the virtue of supporting leaders and helping them to lead well. For followers to help their leaders do well, they have a responsibility to actively participate in the achievement of a nation’s goal (p. 117).

Bezrukova (2003) contended that followership is a people-oriented behavior, and this behavior builds relationships between leaders and followers, providing an environment that encourages all organizational members to focus on a common goal. Both authors suggested that good followers may be a catalyst for change in an organization as followership “inspires others to follow toward a common goal; creates enthusiasm and desire to excel; fully engage others, build confidence; moves the organization ahead as one entity rather than separate parts” (as cited in Thom-Otuya, 2012, p. 117). Not the best writing to begin or end a paragraph with a citation or quote—learn to contextualize these in the paragraph.

Werlin (2002) contended that good followership relationships must build on motivation rather than control and that instilling values into followers is essential to developing a culture of trust and good relationships. He asserted that the balance of power between leader and follower; however, must be maintained to provide a culture of openness that promotes self-engagement (as cited in Thom-Otuya, 2012, p. 117).

McCallum (2013) explained “Followership is a straightforward concept.  It is the ability to take direction well, to get in line behind a program, to be part of a team, and to deliver on what is expected of you.  It gets a bit of a bad rap!  How well the followers follow is probably just as important to enterprise success as how well the leaders lead”. An entire paragraph that is a quote is not needed—as your readers will have to figure out why this is here and what to do with it. As the author you need to explain why it is used.

Ricketts (2009) defines “Fundamentally, followership can be defined as the capacity or willingness to follow a leader” (p. 1).

Kellerman (2008) defines “followership as the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders)” (as cited in Edmonds, 2011, p. 31)

Chaleff’s (1995) definition of a dynamic concept of followership that is based on five unique behaviors: a) responsibility, b) service, c) challenge, d) transformation, and e) leaving demonstrate that these factors coerce followers to proceed within the group (as cited in Edmonds, 2011, p. 40). Punctuation after the citation.

Leadership Historical Progressions

Stone & Patterson (2005) describe the progression of leadership theory. Leadership, and the study of it, has roots in the beginning of civilization. Egyptian rulers and Greek heroes have one thing in common – leadership which includes stages: Early Leader Studies, Classical Management Theory and Scientific Management, Hawthorne, Maslow and Herzberg–Environment and Worker Needs, The Shift to Behavioral Factors, Transformational Leaders Focus on the Organization and The Servant Leader Focus on the Followers.

Followership Historical Progressions

The history of followership is shorter than the history of leadership. Peyton’s (2014) definition of followership as acceptance of the influence of leadership, is contrary to Raffo’s (2013) definition of followership – “There is an interconnection between follower and leader. They are interdependent, a two-way influence process, in a partnership, and reciprocal. Much of a leader’s success depends on effective followers and both roles deserve equal weight” (p. 265). Raffo’s definition of followership can shift the role between leader and follower. Because of a two-way influence process that cannot accept one-way influence. But Peyton extended his definition of followership to switch leader and follower.

Leadership and Followership Perspectives

Northouse (2016) found that “transforming leaders had a clear vision of the future state of their organizations; transforming leaders were social architects for their organization; transforming leaders created trust in their organizations by making their own positions clearly known and then standing by them; transforming leaders used creative deployment of self through positive self-regard” (p. 173).

Kouzes & Posner (2012) indicate five practices of exemplary leadership which are modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act, and encouraging the heart.

Cohen (2010) found that a global mindset is the ability to influence individuals, groups, organizations, and systems that have different intellectual, social, and psychological knowledge or intelligence from your own. He has also stated five global leadership skills would be thinking globally; appreciating cultural diversity; developing technological savvy; building partnerships and alliances; and sharing leadership. In addition, he indicates three overall dichotomies for global mindset and global leadership Global formalization versus local flexibility; Global standardization versus local customization; and Global dictate versus local delegation. Furthermore, he states global leadership development approaches to develop effective global leadership are examination, education, experience, and exposure.

In addition to Cohen’s research, Donaldson (2014) suggests five Key mindsets for life, learning, and leadership which are the global mindset, future mindset, innovation mindset, growth mindset, and ethical mindset. He has also defined a mindset as a way of thinking, a frame of mind, a perspective or way of looking at the world that helps to positively shape your outlook, understanding, behaviors, learning, and performance, leading to successful outcomes for you (and the world). The consensus view seems to be that Donaldson’s definition of mindset is expropriated from Cohen’s definition of global mindset on the way of thinking, frame of mind, and perspective. While Cohen’s definition is only based on a pitch intellectual and intelligence is a passive mindset. Cohen’s requirement for knowledge is very limited, it needs further knowledge of leadership, management, international relations, politics, laws, etc.

Followership perspectives

Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera & McGregor (2010) state that “Followership behaviors differ in that they do not address independent activities of those occupying “subordinate” positions but behaviors of individuals acting about a leader(s). In other words, followership behaviors are not about how individuals interact relative to their work or other coworkers but relative to those with higher status—concerning leaders” (p. 545). Baker, 2007; Chaleff, 2009; Hackman & Johnson, 2009; Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1988; Rost, 1993; Smith, 1997 suggest industrial paradigm characteristics of followers are dependent and Post-industrial Paradigm Description of followers are self-reliant, think for self, can work well without close supervision, responsible, self-starter, well- balanced, takes initiative, self-control, self-reflective, clarifies role and expectations, seeks honest feedback, it is also self-management of follower in Post-industrial Paradigm (as cited in Raffo, 2013, p. 266). Their research outcome is very fit with followership behavior which is described by Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera & McGregor. Because of in Post-industrial Paradigm followers get self-management skills concerning leaders.

Peyton (2014) indicates that “Shared leadership involves three components: task-oriented behaviors, relationship-oriented behaviors, and followership behaviors” (p. 3). Because followers in the Post-industrial Paradigm understand shared leadership these behaviors are relative to higher status.

Conclusion

The description of the definition of leadership and followership and its multiple meanings address leadership and followership progression as well as leadership and followership perspectives. Leadership and followership definitions and their perspectives need further research to harmonize with leadership and followership progression and perspectives. Leadership, followership, and management should be combined and integrated into a unified discipline.

References

Archibald, J. (2015). Followership: Why is it important for Leadership? Retrieved from https://leadershiparchways.com/2015/01/06/followership-why-is-it-important-for-leadership/

Bjugstad, K. (2006). A Fresh Look at Followership: A Model for Matching Followership and   Leadership Styles. Retrieved from http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol7/No3/JBAM_7_3_5_Followership.pdf

Blessing E. N Thom-Otuya, B. E. N. (2012). Leadership and Followership: Essential Factors for National Development and Achievement of Organizational Goals. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 3 (15), 117-118.

Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M. West, B. J., Patera, J. L. & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=leadershipfacpub

Chaleff, I. (1996). Effective followership. Executive Excellence. 13 (4). 16-17.

Deana M. Raffo (2013). Teaching Followership in Leadership Education. Journal of Leadership Education.12 (1). 262-270.

Engstrom, T. W. (1976). The Making of a Christian Leader. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

Forte, A. (2014). Leadership From A Global Perspective. Retrieved from http://cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/IJMIS/article/download/8341/8369

McCallum, J. S. (2013). Followership: The Other Side of Leadership. Retrieved from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/followership-the-other-side-of-leadership/

Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership – Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Ricketts, K. G. (2009). Followership. Community and Leadership Development, (9), 1-2.

Ricketts, K. G. (2009). Followership. Community and Leadership Development, (9), 1-2.

Stone, A. G. & Patterson, K. (2005). The History of Leadership Focus. Retrieved from https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/sl_proceedings/2005/stone_history.pdf

Riggio, R. E., Chaleft, I. & Blumen, J. L. (2008). The Art of Followership. Retrieved from http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9780470186411_sample_379392.pdf

Winston, B. E., & Patterson, K. (2006). An Integrated Definition Leadership. International    Journal of Leadership Studies. 1 (2), 7-32.

Peyton, E. J. (2014). Shared Leadership in Team-based Learning Classroom Teams and Its Relationship to Decision Quality. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Wright State University. Dayton, Ohio.

Cohen, S. L. (2010). Effective global leadership requires a global mindset. Industrial and Commercial Training. 42 (1). 3-10.

Donaldson, J. (2014). Five Key Mindsets for Life, Learning, and Leadership. Retrieved from

ttp://www.edpartnerships.org/sites/default/files/resource/Five%20Key%20Mindsets%20for%20Life,%20Learning%20and%20Leadership%20-%2012-23-14_1.pdf