In Richard Couto(Ed.)(2007), Reflections onLeadership: Essays Honoring James MacGregor Burns. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 57-64. [Emended 2010]
CHAPTER 5
RELATING LEADERSHIP TO ACTIVE FOLLOWERSHIP*
Edwin P. Hollander, University Distinguished Professor of Psychology Emeritus,
Baruch College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY)
The range and astuteness of analyses and insights of Burns’ Leadership (1978) are indeedimpressive. They especially resonate with my long-held views that leadership is not just about the leader and that studying leadership involves more than leaders and their power,because of followership (Hollander & Webb 1955). Early in this landmark book, Burns defines leadership as a relationship between leaders and a multitude of followers. “Leadership, unlike naked power-wielding, is thus inseparable from followers’ needs and goals” (Burns 1978:19). My inclination, from the outset, takes this relationship to mean involving followers actively in desired mutual pursuits. This kind of leader-follower relationship s basic to what I call “inclusive leadership,” most particularly in encouraging practices that yield bonding elements such as loyalty and trust (Hollander 1958; 1978 a, b; 1992 a, b; 1995; 2006).
Jim and I discovered the mutuality of our views at a succession of meetings at annual conferences of the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP), in which we were both active. It was at an ISPP conference early in the l990s that I gladly arranged a session on leadership-followership, at Jim’s suggestion and with his participation. Later he suggested this topic as the focus for a study group for the Kellogg Leadership Studies Project (KLSP 1997). Soon after, I took on the new role of convener for the KLSP focus group to study this topic, with Lynn Offermann succeeding me in that role. The group’s efforts ultimately led to the KLSP publication The Balance of Leadership and Fellowership (1997), as well as presentations at professional meetings. With this as background, we can now consider basic factors in understanding and practicing inclusive leadership (Hollander 2006, 2009 forthcoming).
Leaders, Leadership, and Followership
Traditionally, the leader is seen as the main actor in decision-making. My emphasis, by contrast, favors a balance toward the participation of followers in shared decision-making processes. Their increased participation has merit on the grounds of values such as respect, democratic practice, andlikely follow-through. Mostly, research findingsshowbetter qualityandimplementation of decisionswhenparticipation ispresent (Hollander and Offermann 1990). the leader’s qualities, instead of the relationship of these to followers, and how followers perceive and respond to a leader. Leader-centrism is quite common, and indeed is part of the usual emphasis on an active conception of a dominant leader, at least in directing others’ activity (Hollander 1985). Though we have progressed, “leader-centrism” continues to hold a powerful allure. Even the “great man” theory remains alive in such guises as “corporate savior” and of course “charismatic leader.”
The qualities of leaders are obviously important, but Robert Reich makes the equally important point that, “We need to honor our teams more, our aggressive leaders and maverick geniuses less”
(Reich 1987). In particular, leaders need the skills to engage followers in productive and satisfying mutual pursuits. However, this view presents a departure from the usual way of seeing leaders’ qualities as possessions, rather than as interpersonal links to others involved in shared activities.
Leaders and leadership both depend upon followership. Despite this interdependence, comparatively little attention has been given to followers, who accord or withdraw support to leaders, compared to the effects of the leader on followers (Hollander 1992a; 1992b). Furthermore, this imbalance also neglects the important role of followers in defining and shaping the latitudes of a leader’s action. A view of followership as both active and critical (Kelley 1992) presents a considerable contrast to the more frequent focus on the leader as the center of attention and power, as with the sun in our solar system.
Ironically, the relationship of leaders and followers has a small but enduring place in the study of leadership. Chester Barnard’s (1938) “acceptance theory of authority” exemplified this process. It centered on the follower’s pivotal role in judging whether an order is authoritative. Followers, Barnard suggested, make this judgment according to whether or not they understand the order; believe it is not inconsistent with organizational or personal goals; have the ability to comply with it; and see more rewards than costs in complying and remaining with the organization or group (Hollander 1978a:47). Mary Parker Follett in the 1920s and 30s proposed similarly that attention be paid to who gives orders and how they are received by the persons to whom they are directed (See Graham, 1995). This call for attention to followership is more than episodic.
Leadership and followership exist in a relationship built over time. Effective leaders bolster that relationship by providing for follower needs, not only in tangible ways but also through such intangible rewards as support, fairness, and trust. As part of good business practice, Fayol (1916) long ago advocated attention to worker well-being, in addition to satisfying remuneration, bonuses, and profit-sharing. Yet, the focus on such tangible rewards left a significant gap in understanding the role of intangible rewards in leadership (Hollander et al. 1996). To enrich this conception, we need to turn to the actual experiences of followers with leaders.
A body of research shows how inattention to leader-follower relations can produce dysfunctional outcomes, from what Drucker (1988) has called “misleaders.” For instance, Hogan, Raskin, and Fazzini (1990) found that organizational climate studies from the mid-1950s onward showed 60 percent to 75 percent of organizational respondents reported their immediate supervisor as the worst or most stressful aspect of their job. Indeed, from his ten-year literature review, DeVries (1992) reported a base rate of at least 50 percent for executive incompetence. Lord and Maher (1991) say that follower perceptions are checked against prototypes held by them and their related expectations of how leaders should perform, called “implicit leadership theories” (ILTs).
Followership thereby provides the key to charismatic leadership, as well as to its loss. Max Weber originated the concept of the charismatic leader, who is distinguished by a strong personal appeal and extraordinary determination, especially in time of crisis. However, Weber also recognized that if “leadership fails to benefit followers, it is likely that … charisma will disappear” (Weber 1946:360). In short, followers accord this quality. Weber does not suggest the leader possesses charisma independently of followers, as others too often portray it. Willner (1984) and Hollander and Offermann (1990) are among those studying charisma as an attribution dependent upon relational qualities in the leader-follower bond. “It is not what the leader is but what people see the leader as that counts in generating the charismatic relationship” (Willner 1984:14). From her study, she goes on to note that variations in their personalities do not permit any generalization about a single charismatic leadership type, nor did a crisis serve as a necessary or sufficient cause for their emergence (Willner 1984:60).
Such findings highlight the importance of followers as perceivers with expectations of and attributions about leader performance and values. These points underscore the vital nature of the interdependence of leader and follower on a wide range of matters including the morality of leadership (Hollander 1992a; 1992b; 1995).
Leader-follower relations are basic to significant leadership events and outcomes, good or bad. Burns’s work deals explicitly with the moral dimension in leadership. He even defines leadership as “a process of morality to the extent that leaders engage with followers on the basis of shared motives and values and goals” (Burns 1987:36). In more specific terms, Howard Gardner observed “[Leaders are] persons who, by word and/or personal example, markedly influence the behaviors, thoughts, and/or feelings of a significant number of their fellow human beings” (Gardner 1995:8).
The Attributional Perceptual Approach
This phenomenon of leaders/followers interaction is seen also in a perceptual pattern that involves follower attributions about a leader’s intentions, values, and performance. One aspect of this has been termed the “romance of leadership” (Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich 1987). They found that in perceiving group and organizational performance, positive or negative outcomes are more likely to be
attributed as effects of the leader’s actions than to other factors. Because leaders are symbols, Pfeffer (1977) says that if something goes wrong, the whole staff or entire team cannot be fired, but firing the manager can convey a sense of rooting out the problems’ source.
A consequence of the attributional approach is to make more explicit the significance of followers’ and others’ perceptions of the leader, not least regarding expectations about leader competence and motivation. Realistically, imagery and self-presentation may still obscure the truth about the leader’s intentions and dealings, yet there remains the basic question of the degree to which followers are able to evaluate the leader in regard to each of these matters.
Nevertheless, the usefulness of the follower’s perspective, as an avenue to understanding leadership, is illustrated by the work on “derailment” (McCall, Lombardo and Morrison 1988). The study involved four hundred promising managers, who appeared to be on a fast track. Those failing to reach their expected potential were found to show various kinds of inconsiderate behavior toward others, but rarely to lack technical skills. With a sample of 2,600 top level managers, Kouzes and Posner (1987) looked at qualities these managers admired in their leaders. Among the most frequently chosen qualities were being honest and providing inspiration, in addition to being competent and forward-looking. Here again the interpersonal or relational arena was seen as playing a major role.
In our own research, my colleagues and I have used a mode of event analysis called “critical incidents,” with rating scales of the leader described in the event, plus other evaluations. Our sample of 293 organizationally-based respondents were found to distinguish good from bad leadership mostly by relational qualities. Reports of positive rewards of sensitivity to followers, support, and praise dominated good leadership but were absent or negative in bad leadership. The four relational qualities that most frequently differentiated the two were scales of perceptiveness, involvement, trustworthiness, and rewardingness (Hollander and Kelly 1992; Hollander et al. 1996).
A significant percentage of the respondents mentioned support as the intangible reward provided by the “good” leader in the critical incident situations. Respondents illustrated the relational reward of support with examples of the following practices: “Provided a clear message which helped me interact more effectively” (communicating); “gave recognition to whoever provided the input” (fairness); problems were handled quickly, promptly, and effectively” (action-oriented behavior) and naturally, “backed up his staff” (support).
Conversely, in the bad condition, respondents described a lack of sensitivity and support as the two unrewarding behaviors displayed by the leader. However, other behavior categories occurred. They involved unfairness, (“rules do not go for everyone”); unsupportive actions (“never made her thoughts clear”); or anger/harshness (“constantly sought to demean me”). In addition, untruthful/deceptive behavior was associated with bad leadership.
In response to the leader’s behavior and obtaining rewards for them, respondents in the good condition indicated increasing participation/followership. This response was most strongly associated with behavior categories involving communication and delegation/empowerment, at 50 percent of each, indicating that benefits resulting from good leadership may occur more often when certain behaviors are displayed.
Respondents in each of the critical incident categories in the bad condition (except poor communication) indicated passivity/withholding as their reaction to bad leadership. Behaviors involving a lack of support were associated with the clearest effects. Approximately 30 percent of these respondents also mentioned expressing thoughts or feelings to the superior and discouragement/disappointment in response to the leader’s actions. In each of the categories in the good condition, respondents reported that the leader’s behavior developed/strengthened the relationship as the effect of the incident. The effects of the critical incident on the leader-follower relationship in the bad condition parallels those found in the good condition. In the bad condition, about thirty percent of the respondents, across critical behavior categories, mentioned weakened relationship, with the exception of poor communication, which apparently could not get much worse. A similar percentage indicated a loss of respect of the superior, which may reduce the legitimacy of the leader and his or her ability to take action. Finally, incidents involving unfairness were associated with an avoidance of the superior, or job termination.
Moreover, there are differences of relational rewards within the good condition. The traditional behaviors of communicating and taking needed action are primarily leader-centric. The more modern leadership approaches of delegating and support are representative of greater follower interaction. Specifically, delegating exemplifies the belief that leaders should relinquish some of their power to facilitate growth in their subordinates. Supportive behavior is related to this development because it provided the encouragement, both personally and professionally, which is necessary for followers to develop the desire and ability to accept these leadership challenges. Though all of the behavioral categories indicated by respondents represent examples of effective leadership behavior, the modern approaches result in even more favorable outcomes for the leader, follower, and leader/follower relationship. The patterns of rewards and outcomes associated with these behavior categories, absent or negative in the bad condition, justify the essential point of relational approaches to good leadership, viewing leadership as a mutual process involving intangible as well as tangible rewards.
Transactional Leadership and the Idiosyncrasy Credit Model
This critical incident research reinforces the importance of leader-follower relations in leadership outcomes, as proposed in the "Idiosyncrasy Credit" Model that deals with the latitude followers provide leaders for their action (Hollander l958; 1964). The essential formulation in the model is that credits are earned over time in the perceptions of others as a sign of loyalty by competence in helping to achieve the group’s task goals, and conformity to the group’s norms. Credits may then be drawn on to take innovative actions in line with expectations associated with the leader’s role. Therefore, early signs of competence and conformity can permit toleration of nonconformity, in the form of innovations, later. Various experiments with groups, including a group-decision task, tested the model initially. Later research at Harvard by Estrada et al (1995) also supported the model with work groups studied longitudinally.
Underlying the Idiosyncrasy Credit Model is recognition that a process of attributions made by followers is significant to accepting influence. The same behavior seen to be nonconforming if shown by one group member may not be so perceived when displayed by another. In short, nonconformity is defined within a group context, and the particular actor perceived within it, especially regarding his or her status (Hollander 1958; 1961). In addition, nonconformity can be viewed with regard to the common expectancies applied generally as a norm for group members, and the particular expectancies applied to a high-status member. Accordingly, leaders may initiate change, perhaps in seemingly nonconforming ways, but be fulfilling in an accepted innovative role. While there may be greater tolerance of nonconformity for the high-status member in some ways, there are restrictions imposed regarding particular expectancies, which can be thought of as role behaviors.
Because the Idiosyncrasy Credit Model deals with a perceptual process in which followers accord or withdraw credits for a leader, it serves as an essential paradigm of a transactional process, but one with wider consequences. Having been granted credit by followers, it is then more possible for a leader to have them accept and follow innovative actions otherwise seen as unacceptable. This goes to the heart of the attributions that underlie the development of follower loyalty and trust in the leader. That was the theme of an analysis of the so-called “crisis” of leadership (Hollander 1978b). The essential point of giving attention to the followers’ place in the leader-follower relationship was evident in the Human Relations Movement (see e.g. McGregor 1960; Likert 1961) with
its emphasis on engaging followers in leadership; the roots of this movement were seen even earlier in Barnard’s (1938) and Follett’s (Graham 1966) conceptions, as noted above.
Transactional leadership has long referred to a fair exchange in which the leader gives something to followers and receives esteem and latitude for action in return (Homans 1961). The essence of the transactional form of leadership is to consider it, not as a thing that a leader possesses so much, as a process involving followers in a specific context with particular transactional requirements (Hollander and Webb 1955). Furthermore, it places weight on relational factors, processed by follower perceptions of a leader’s legitimacy, values, intentions, and competence, among other attributes (Hollander and Julian 1969). Finally, this attributional process extends as well to factors making for transforming leadership (Hollander 1993).
Despite its relational elements, transactional leadership has been distorted to mean “management” and to refer to very different processes, such as “management by exception” (Bass 1985). This is a mistakenly imported conception that has not been part of usual transactional thinking, such as the reciprocity norm (Gouldner, 1950). It also makes a too literal carryover from the political realm, i.e., doing favors to “buy votes” from constituents, to the work realm. Consequently, such generally approved leadership practices as intellectual stimulation and individual attention to followers, which provide obvious rewards to them, have been appropriated wholly into transforming leadership. However, these practices have long been valued as good leadership, especially in the transactional emphasis on the two-way leader-follower relationship.
Transactional and Transforming Leadership
Burns considers the transforming phenomenon to involve a more intense leader-follower relationship, though its origin rests in the same interdependence and identification (Hollander 1992a) that supports transactional leadership. Regarding the distinction between transactional and transforming leadership, Ehrlich and his colleagues assert that, “Conceptually, the basis for either form of leadership is a relational and perceptual exchange developed between a leader and his or her subordinates” (Ehrlich et al. 1990:231). But the actuality of this transaction between leader and followers is usually obscured in accounting for the transforming phenomenon. Instead there is an insistence on a firm dichotomy between transactional and transforming leadership by considering only tangible rewards and failing to acknowledge the intangible ones followers receive from transforming as well as transactional leaders. In this respect, Chemers contends that intrinsic rewards of “self-esteem, a sense of purpose, or salvation... become highly attractive and supremely motivating” when followers’ needs are intense enough. “Under such circumstances, charismatic or transformational leadership may be seen as a special, elevated case of the more mundane transactional exchange processes that are the basis for all, person-to-person, team leadership” (Chemers 1993:312).