Leadership:What Followers Want From Their LeadersLeaders cannot exist without followers, nor can followers exist without leaders. Heller and Van Til agree leadership and followership are linked concepts. This means neither can happen without the other. The compliance of the followers is the mirror image of successful leadership. At the same time, successful leadership is a product of increased follower efficiency and effectiveness through their leadership influence. Leaders can influence their followers but not without follower compliance. Leaders who understand what their followers want are successful leaders and gain the compliance of their followers. Maslow helps leaders understand this connection with followers through his Hierarchy of needs. Maslow focused more on the whole person of the follower and leader and saw them as people with values and people who make choices. Leaders who look for this connection are not only successful but understand the needs and wants of their followers. Leaders cannot change the values of followers but they can understand them. Leaders cannot force the choices of followers but they can guide them.At this present time two forces, according to Jean Lipman-Blumen, are changing the circumstances under which leaders lead. These forces are interdependence and diversity. Interdependence is mostly related to technology and how we are connected at anytime, anywhere to anyone. Interdependence drives us towards collaboration but also creates more complications due to the requirements of this global collaboration. Followers have more choices to make and need more guidance rather than distance from their leaders. This creates more complexity because leaders have a wider span of control today than they did in the past due to technological advances. This translates into less quality time spent with their followers and potentially more disconnects created within the leader-follower relationship.The other force affecting the leader-follower connection is diversity. Diversity is related to the character of individuals, groups and organizations. It deals with the need for identity and without this understanding leaders further complicate their ability to be successful in their relationship with their followers. Diversity focuses on the unique individual or follower and highlights their differences and potentially conflicting agendas. This creates another complexity for the leader-follower relationship but demonstrates the importance of a leaders involvement in their understanding of their followers wants and needs. This is the nature of the new follower which will need a new leader. Understanding what these new followers want becomes a new challenge for leaders if they want to create this connection and remain effective in their leadership.The Changing Nature of a Follower and the Leaders ChallengeOur followers are part of a global uncertainty and search for meaning which is translating back into their organizational performance. InThe Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner state, from heightening uncertainty across the world to an intense search for meaning, our connections as people and as leaders are part of this context. According to Kouzes and Posner the content of leadership has not changed but the context has. They mention the heightened uncertainty and search for meaning within this changing context is evident in the rapid pace of our new economy which includes; globalization, continuous connectivity,knowledge capital, instant gratification and access, and a new social contract.Our followers are changing, within this context, and leaders need to seize the opportunity to lead differently. Leading differently means understanding how to approach the changing context affecting our followers. Our followers are more diverse and our connections are being made within a global context. According to Jay Galbraith inDesigning Organizationsa leaders span of control is increasing so spans of seventeen or even twenty become possible. Technology makes this span of control possible through collaboration but what is the cost? As our followers are changing the job of the leader is becoming more difficult as connections become more difficult to maintain.Followers Have Needs TooHow can leaders connect with followers? Where do they begin? If leaders focus only on the physical presence of the follower they will disregard the emotional and physical. By definition a focus on the physical is a focus on anything relating to the body which is also anything that is distinguished from the mind or spirit. If the follower is only a physically being then a leader would be able to motivate simply by focusing on the physical aspects of the follower. Abraham Maslow focused on the whole person and this person has values and makes choices. Maslow saw motivation moving beyond a focus on followers as physical beings. This is certainly not revolutionary because in the bible we see where Jesus came to shows us thespiritual realmand redirect our focus on things which are eternal (II Corinthians 4:18). Leaders need to see their followers as more than a warm physical body. Followers are organizational contributors who are instrumental in the leaders success. Their contribution is contingent upon the fulfillment of their needs.InThe Art of FollowershipRob Goffeeand Gareth Jones states followers are looking for authenticity, significance and community from their leaders. Many leadership theories focus on leadership as a role you do to followers. Goffee and Jones see leadership as a role you do with your followers. It is a relationship and it does not happen without a leaders recognition of their followers needs. All great leaders must at some time occupy the position of a follower. Aristotle stated all great leaders must first learn to follow. Peter Drucker tells us the defining characteristic of leaders is followers. So before a leader can lead they must first realize what it is like to follow. When they follow they will look for these qualities from their leaders and will understand the needs of their followers when it comes time to lead. This will make them better leaders as they have been in the position of the follower. This association will improve the connection between the leader and the follower because they will have walked in their shoes.InLeading and Empowering Diverse FollowersLynn Offerman states diversity issuesare critical to understanding the dynamics of leadership and followership. She goes on to say, as organizations change and become more demographically and internationally diverse, and as relationships between individuals within and across organizations become ever more critical in the realization of organizational success, diversity of followership becomes increasingly important as a leadership issue. In the leaders quest to connect with their followers diversity is at the heart of their understanding. What connections are necessary to address the diversity between leaders and followers? What can leaders do to make these connections?Connected LeadershipHow do leaders begin to cultivate this connection? With followers who are more diverse how do leaders stay connected to their changing followers? With the increasing complexity placed on leaders how do they maintain a connection to followers?The Center for Creative leadership sees this topic as so important they have created a practice around it. They state this practice, views leadership as an inclusive and collective activity shared by many, if not all, organizational members. This means that leadership development addresses not just individuals but the links between individuals and the systems and cultures in which they work. The Connected Leadership approach helps organizations transform their leadership culture and leadership practices in the direction of greater collaboration, engagement across boundaries, dialogue and learning, embracing differences, and the direct involvement of people at all levels of the organization in leadership work. As leaders become influenced by the forces of interdependence and diversity followers are looking for leaders to become more connected. Connected leaders enable their followers with better collaboration, visibility across organizational boundaries, different ways of promoting dialogue, a perception of their differences and an understanding of how followers can be more involved.The Hay Group, a global management consultant company, believes the topic of connected leadership to be so important they have begun studies of this within schools in theUnited Kingdom. In their research they find similarities between successful organizations and educational institutions as the ability to share ideas rapidly and effectively throughout the organization and the encouragement of followers to become leaders. Unfortunately the traditional notions of leadership do not promote these ideas because they necessitate connected relationships through connected leadership.At a recent CCL [Center for Creative Leadership] conference one of the speakers stated, sound leadership strategies connect leadership and create and mobilize richly interconnected networks of people doing purposeful, targeted, and strategic work together. As mentioned earlier leadership and followership are linked [connected] concepts. Leadership cannot happen without followers but followers cannot become mobilized without connected leadership. Connected leadership is about knowing the right strategy, connecting with followers and then mobilizing them to achieve the organizational vision.Erasing the Distance and Becoming ConnectedIn order to erase the distance being created through this increasing gap of connection between leaders and followers leaders need to get to know their followers. Spending time with followers is now more crucial today than it was when leaders had a span of control of five to seven employees. It is more difficult to know their followers on the levels their followers need for their own continued productivity. It is even more difficult for leaders to maintain this relationship for their own needs to keep the organization efficient and effective. Both leaders and followers need different things from each other. Leaders need to achieve their objectives and followers need to understand how they fit within these objectives. The leaders needs happen through the followers. The followers needs happen through their leaders. They need each other to fulfill their needs.What are some things leaders can do to erase the distance in this relationship and become connected with their followers?As previously mentioned followersare looking for authenticity, significance and community from their leaders.Most likely followers have values which are different from their leaders. Understanding these values and how a leader can relate to them would help create a connection of significance within this relationship. Aubrey MalphursIn Being Leadersstates, wise leaders understand that their effectiveness as a leader of an organization .. depends to a great degree on values alignment. Then he states, studies of person-organization fit show that people who share an organizations values are more likely to contribute to the organization in constructive ways. Understanding a followers values and then relating to these values could erase the distance between leaders and followers and help them become connected.Leaders often alienate their followers through their leadership style. Looking to understand their leadership style as in Situational Leadership by Hersey and Blanchard could also erase the distance created within this relationship. An understanding of the leaders style and how it affects their followers performance would demonstrate the leader is aware of where the follower stands developmentally. This could erase some distance and create a connection of authenticity as the two work together to grow in their knowledge and understanding.With todays organizations faster pace, higher demands, multiple simultaneous requests and larger spans of control a leaders time is minimal. This leaves little to no room for building personal relationships but followers are looking for a sense of community from their leaders. InThe Leadership ChallengeKouzes and Posner state this is where the follower needs a sense of importance. Followers want to know theyand youare in this together so they can feel that what they are doing is important and all of our contributions make a difference. By not doing this leaders create alienation and followers lose their sense of community.By focusing on followers needs of authenticity, significance and community leaders can make strides in erasing the distance created through interdependence and diversity. A focus on these needs will reconnect leaders to their followers and place them on the path of a healthy growing relationship. The health of this relationship is a key contributor to the optimal efficiency and effectiveness of an organization.

Leader-Follower TheoryLeader-Follower Theory: Meaning and Impact

By Malcolm J. StubblefieldJaunuary 2010

As we consider the impact of leader-follower theory the methods used by leaders and followers to interact be it through leader-memberexchange theory(Phillips & Bedeian, 1994), adaptive change theory (Heifetz & Laurie, 2001), or social identity theory (Hogg, 2001), two import components must be present and continuously massaged by both the leader and his/her followership, they are: effective communication linkages and relationship building.When these components are frayed (or nonexistent) the effectiveness of leader-follower exchange is considerably diminished which can negativelyimpact managementand the environment (Kellerman, 2007).That said, I turn now to addressing the meaning and impact of leader-follower theory as it relates to management and/or workplace environment.Heifetz & Laurie (2001) offer an interesting perspective for leader-follower interchange relating to radical factors that present themselves in the course of daily routines.Through the theory of adaptive change the leader encourages (coerces) followers to face hard realities adaptive challenges that are presented within their work environments. The leader encourages followers to develop new strategies and learn new ways of operating (p. 132).

As problems are resolved and decisions made to address circumstances that are ever present within the organizational environment, the methods used to reach solvable conclusions or develop a plan of attack are critical.From a metaphorical perspective, getting a birds eye view of the organization and the issues that must be confronted has its advantages.As Heifetz & Laurie (2001) put forth, leaders have to be able to view patterns as if they were on a balcony (p. 132). From this vantage point, the leader is in a better position to communicate and provide the followership guidance as they (followers) set about addressing and finding their own solutions to critical problems.Indeed, when followers are empowered to formulate, regulate, and initiate adaptive change, buy-in that influences an effective leader-follower exchange is more abundant then when the leader alone is relegated to offer a solution.It is this writers opinion that leaders who use of adaptive change theory forge a leader-follower relationship that is positively influenced though the incorporation of effective communication and relationship building competencies

Still another perspective of the leader-follow theory presents evidence that leaders exist because of followers and followers exit because of leaders (Hogg, 2001). Hence, socialidentity theorygoes to the heart of relationship building and effective communication linkages that must exist between leaders-followers and followers-followers.As followers become integrated in groups they form group identities, a sense of competitiveness towards other groups, and the need to actively influence desired outcomes. As they gain influence and staying power group members establish agendas, achieve collective goals, and gain group power.Thus the group establishes its own leadership prowess that can be used to challenge or support their respective leader. The dynamics of the groups social identity when applied to the leader-follower relationship can help or hinder a leaders decision-making capabilities.

An interesting corollary is established through the work of Kellerman (2007), who categorizes followers as isolates, bystanders, participants, activists, and diehards (p. 87).Isolates are individuals who are completely detached; they could care less about the organization, their peers, or their leader.Their involvement in the organization is strictly self-fulfilling the receipt of a paycheck. Bystanders pay attention but do little in the form of involvement: they stand on the sideline and observe. They are a step up from the isolates and provide little if any support to the leader or the organization. Participants can be counted on to demonstrate measurable support or alienation towards the leader or the organization. They too fall into the self-serving category. Activists express their feelings about their leader and organization in both a positive or negative manner.They hold true to their beliefs and convictions.That said, They work hard either on behalf of their leaders or to undermine and even unseat them (p. 89).And finally, diehards will stick to the cause that they believe in.They can be a leadersbest assetor worse nightmare.Within the organization they rank as the minority within the work force, but can be a force to be reckoned with.

The impact leader-follower theory has on management and the workplace environment is far reaching. The personality of the leader and, likewise the personalities of followers, set the stage for meaning dialogue and desired outcomes.How this dyadic relationship matures is predicated on effective communication and relationship building.As stated earlier in this paper without these two components the leader, followers, and the organization suffer.ReferencesHeifetz, R., & Laurie, D. (2001). The work of leadership.Harvard BusinessReview, 79(11), 131-141.Hogg, M. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership.Personality & Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184-201.Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about followers.Harvard Business Review, 85(12), 84-91.

Definitions[edit]Shared leadership can be defined in a number of ways, but all definitions describe a similar phenomenon team leadership by more than only the appointed leader. Below are a few examples from researchers in this field: Yukl (1989): "Individual members of a team engaging in activities that influence the team and other team members."[2] Pearce and Sims (2001): "leadership that emanates from members of teams, and not simply from the appointed leader."[3] Pearce and Conger (2002): "a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals and groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both." They also added that "this influence process often involves peer, or lateral, influence and at other times involves upward or downward hierarchical influence"[4] Carson, Tesluck, and Marrone (2007): "An emergent team property that results from the distribution of leadership influence across multiple team members."[5] Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, and Bergman (2012): "Shared leadership occurs when two or more members engage in the leadership of the team in an effort to influence and direct fellow members to maximize team effectiveness."[6]Shared leadership is also commonly thought of as the "serial emergence" of multiple leaders over the life of a team, stemming from interactions among team members in which at least one team member tries to influence other members or the team in general.[7]While the definition clearly has several variants, they all make the fundamental distinction between shared leadership and more traditional notions of hierarchical leadership. As Pearce, Manz and Sims (2009) summarize, all definitions of shared leadership consistently include a "process of influence" that is "built upon more than just downward influence on subordinates or followers by an appointed or elected leader." Nearly all concepts of shared leadership entail the practice of "broadly sharing power and influence among a set of individuals rather than centralizing it in the hands of a single individual who acts in the clear role of a dominant superior."[8]Background[edit]Though a relatively new phenomenon in the literature, the concept of shared leadership can actually be traced back several centuries. In a 2002 paper, David Sally noted that shared leadership was present even in the early days of Republican Rome. Indeed, during those ancient times, Rome "had a successful system of co-leadership that lasted for over four centuries. This structure of co-leadership was so effective that it extended from the lower levels of the Roman magistracy to the very top position, that of consul." (Sally, 2002) Despite such early incantations of the practice, however, most of the scholarly work on leadership has still been predominantly focused on the study of leadership in its hierarchical form. Leadership is conceived around a single individual the leader and how that person inspires, entices, commands, cajoles and controls followers. Research on shared leadership instead departs from the notion that leadership may well be studied as a collective phenomenon, as activities involving several individuals beyond the formally appointed manager[9]There are some earlier conceptualizations of shared leadership. In 1924,Mary Parker Folletwrote that "one should not only look to the designated leader, but one should let logic dictate to whom one should look for guidance" (as cited by Crainer, 2002, p.72).[10]Along similar lines, Gibb, in 1954, wrote that "leadership is probably best conceived as a group quality, as a set of functions which must be carried out by the group."[11]Despite these early nods toward group leadership, the formalized construct of shared leadership did not become more developed and experimentally explored until recently. Current research suggest that shared leadership forms may imply significant advantages at individual-, team-, organizational- and societal levels[12]The shift in this scholarly paradigm might partly be explained by looking at the rise of studies onteamwork. Teamwork is becoming increasingly important in the workplace literature as many organizations recognize the benefits that teamwork can bring. Thus, organizations consider it important to investigate team effectiveness and the elements that increase this. Leaders have been pointed to as critical factors in team performance and effectiveness; some have even gone as far as to say they the most important ingredient for team effectiveness.[13]Additionally, problems associated with team leaders are often cited as the primary reason for failures of work involving teams.[14]With the complexity and ambiguity of tasks that teams often experience, it is becoming more apparent that a single leader is unlikely to have all of the skills and traits to effectively perform the necessary leadership functions.[15]Thus, shared leadership is becoming increasingly popular in teams, as multiple team members emerge as leaders, especially when they have the skills/knowledge/expertise that the team needs.Measuring shared leadership[edit]There are two main ways in which most researchers measure the existence and extent of shared leadership in a team: Ratings of the team's collective leadership behavior and Social Network Analysis. A less common technique of measuring shared leadership is with the use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales.Ratings of team's collective leadership behavior[edit]Many studies measure shared leadership as team member perceptions of leader behavior exhibited by respective team leaders and team members.[16]Often this is done by distributing leader behavior questionnaires (surveys aimed at measuring the existence and frequency of different leader behaviors) to all members of a team. Team members are instructed to fill these out once for the appointed leader and then again for all other team members. Although this allows leadership quantity to be assessed, it does not pinpoint how many other team members are engaging in leadership behaviors or how many members are looking to the same people for leadership.Social network analysis[edit]Social network analysis(SNA) addresses some of the flaws of collective leader behavior ratings by assessing the patterns of connections that emerge in a team and providing a method for modeling both vertical and shared leadership within a team. SNA examines the relationships that form between individuals and uses these relationships as the units of analysis. In the leadership domain, a relationship, or "tie" as it is referred to in SNA literature, occurs when one team member perceives another as exerting leadership influence on the team. The proportion of actual ties that exist in a team to all potential ties that could have emerged in a team is called network density and can be used as a measure of shared leadership.[17]Some researchers go further into SNA and analyze a network's centralization, which helps assess the distribution of leadership, as well as the quantity.[18]Network centralization is measured using centrality values that are calculated for each individual. A centrality value for an individual represents the number of connections that individual has with others. The sum of the differences between the maximum individual centrality value and every other individual centrality value, divided by the maximum possible sum of differences, produces a measure of network centralization between 0 and 1, which describes the extent to which connections are concentrated around one individual, or if multiple individuals are central to the leadership network.A shared leadership network can be further separated into distributed-coordinated or distributed-fragmented by SNA.[19]This distinction depends on whether the formal and emergent leaders in a network recognize each other as leaders and are able to coordinate and lead together efficiently.[20]Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS)[edit]Some studies have sought to measure shared leadership through observations of actual leadership behaviors. Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) are commonly used to assess and rate performances, and can be developed to assess different leadership behaviors. Bergman et al. (2012), for example, developed such a scale and had trained raters watch videotapes of team interactions and rate each team member's behavior in terms of the dimensions on the BARS. They then operationalized shared leadership as the number of members who performed leadership behaviors, as well as the amount of leadership behavior exhibited by the team (calculated by aggregating the leadership ratings for each team member to the team level).[21]There are advantages and disadvantages to each measurement technique. Although all are attempting to measure the same phenomenon and all have been used in published studies, the particular measure that a researcher uses can impact his or her results.Antecedents: internal and external conditions[edit]A host of scholars who have studied shared leadership found that in order for the dynamic to properly emerge, two preconditions must be met. First, team members must actually be willing to extend their feedback to the team in a way that aims to influence and motivate the direction of the group. Second, the team must overall be disposed to accept and rely on such feedback by other team members.[22]Carson et al. (2007) expanded these two requirements by describing them in a larger, two-part framework that includes the degree to which a strong internal team environment exists and the extent to which positive external teamcoachingoccurs.[23]Internal team environment[edit]Carson et al. (2007) propose first that shared leadership is facilitated by an overall team environment that consists of three dimensions: shared purpose, social support, and voice. The three concepts are also drawn from a wide body of literature: Shared purposeprevailswhen team members have similar understandings of their team's main objectives and take steps to ensure a focus on collective goals. Social supportis theextent to which team members actively provide emotional and psychological strength to one another. This may occur through overt acts of encouragement or expressed recognition of other team members' contributions and accomplishments. Voiceis thedegree to which a team's members have input into how the team carries out its purpose.[24]The three dimensions are highly interrelated and mutually reinforcing, thereby "representing a high order construct."[25]Carson et al. summarize the interconnectivity of these three concepts in a concise narrative: When team members are able to speak up and get involved (voice), the likelihood that many of them will exercise leadership increases greatly. The opportunity for voice also facilitates shared leadership by strengthening both a common sense of direction and the potential for positive interpersonal support in a team. When teams are focused on collective goals (shared purpose), there is a greater sense of meaning and increased motivation for team members to both speak up and invest themselves in providing leadership to the team and to respond to the leadership of others. The motivation to participate and provide input toward achieving common goals and a common purpose can also be reinforced by an encouraging and supportive climate. When team members feel recognized and supported within their team (social support) they are more willing to share responsibility, cooperate, and commit to the team's collectivegoals. Thus, these three dimensions work together to create an internal team environment that is characterized by a shared understanding about purpose and goals, a sense of recognition and importance, and high levels of involvement, challenge, and cooperation.[26]External team coaching[edit]Scholars have also described the important role that external team leaders and support can have in the development of shared leadership.[27]When framing this dynamic or antecedent, scholars have stressed the importance of externalcoachingbehaviors. One scholar defines these coaching behaviors as: "direct interaction with a team intended to help team members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resources in accomplishing the team's task."[28]Researchers have identified two types of team coaching, distinguishing between those which reinforce shared leadership (supportivecoaching) and those which focus on identifying team problems through taskinterventions(functional approach).[29]Through supportive coaching, external team managers can reinforce the development of shared leadership in a variety of ways. Through active encouragement and positive reinforcement of team members who demonstrate leadership, coaching can foster independence and a sense of self-competence nurtures among team members. Coaching can also nurture collective commitment to the team and its objectives, a shared promise that can reduce free riding and increase the possibility that team members will demonstrate personal initiative.[30]A second, more indirect, way in which externalcoachingmay positively encourage shared leadership is based on a functional approach. Within this approach, the role of an external team leader is to do whatever is not being adequately managed by the team itself, to "intervene on behalf of an incomplete task." This functional coaching can be redundant when teams have highly supportive internal environments and therefore are less critical to the overall development of shared leadership. When interventions are necessary, however, such as when teams lack a strong shared purpose, the functional approach asserts that this kind of external influence may be particularly important. In this sense, the functional approach can be understood as providing "motivational and consultative functions that enable shared leadership but have not been adequately developed by the team internally."[31]Effects[edit]Although there is an ongoing debate about the existence and importance of shared leadership, many studies have shown shared leadership to be a significant predictor for various team processes.Team effectiveness/performance[edit]A commonly explored consequence of shared leadership is team effectiveness orteam performance, which can be measured either by self-reports of team members or by outsider ratings, such as supervisor or client ratings.[32]Performance is also sometimes measured more objectively, by using a commonly agreed-upon scale or rubric to rate the execution of a task. Many studies have found a positive relationship between shared leadership and team effectiveness and performance.[33]Similarly, other studies have explored the extent to which shared leadership can predict a team's effectiveness or performance, and have found it to be a significant predictor, and often a better predictor than vertical leadership.[34]As discussed in the measurement section of this article, the technique used to measure shared leadership can influence the results that are found. For example, Mehra et al. (2006) first compared teams with a distributed (shared) leadership structure to teams with a more traditional (vertical) leadership structure. In contrast to other studies, they did not find that teams with shared leadership outperformed the traditional teams. However, when they separated the distributed teams into distributed-coordinated and distributed-fragmented (see measures section), they found that distributed-coordinated team structures were associated with higher performance than both traditional leader-centered teams and distributed-fragmented leadership networks. Thus, they theorized, having more leaders is not the only factor that matters to team performance; rather, leaders must recognize other leaders as such in order for them to contribute positively to team effectiveness.[35]Number and types of leadership[edit]Not surprisingly, shared leadership has been shown to increase the number and types of leadership (for example,transformational leadership;transactional leadership;and consideration and initiating structure.)[36]Shared leadership enables team members to express their different abilities, thus allowing different leadership behaviors to be exhibited in a single team. Bergman et al. (2012) found that teams did, in fact, experience more types of leadership behaviors when multiple members of the team participated in the team's leadership. Additionally, they found that each leader only effectively engaged in one type of leadership, leading us to further believe that shared leadership allows for more leadership behaviors to be expressed than vertical leadership.[37]Implications and further research directions[edit]Scholars have pointed to 4 main areas in shared leadership that need more research:1. events that generate shared leadership,2. facilitation factors,3. the most conducive influence approaches, and4. stages and life cycles in shared leadership settings (Carson et al., 2007; Pearce and Conger, 2002).Additionally, more scholarship needs to be done on outcomes of shared leadership. The spike of recent scholarship in this field does indicate that scholars increasingly understand the significance of shared leadership as organizations in the field are also increasingly capitalizing on the many benefits a shared leadership approach can offer.See also[edit] Template:Leader-member exchange Collaborative leadership Group dynamics Group development Human resources Leadership development Leadership studies Organizational development Three Levels of Leadership model Team building Team composition Trait leadershipReferences[edit]1. Jump up^Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 3, 251-269.2. Jump up^Yukl, G.A. (1989) Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research." Journal of Management, 15, 2, 251289.3. Jump up^Pearce, C.L., & Sims, H.P. (2001) Shared leadership: toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115139.4. Jump up^Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J.A. (2002) Shared leadership: reframing the hows and whys of leadership. New York: Sage Publications, Inc5. Jump up^Carson, J. B, Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in team: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 5, 1217-1234.6. Jump up^Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S.W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams, The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 1, 17-42.7. Jump up^Carson et al, 20078. Jump up^Pearce, C, L., C. C, Manz, and H. R Sims, Jr. 2009. Where Do We Go From Here?: Is Shared Leadership the Key to Team Success? Organizational Dynamics 38 (3): 234-38, p. 234.9. Jump up^Crevani et al, 2010; Denis et al, 201210. Jump up^Crainer, S. (2000). The Management Century. New York: Jossey-Bass.11. Jump up^Gibb, C. A., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (1954). Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons (p.54)12. Jump up^Crevani et al, 200713. Jump up^Carson et al, 200714. Jump up^Bergman et al, 201215. Jump up^Carson et al, 200716. Jump up^Pearce & Sims, 200117. Jump up^Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006) Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 3, 232-24518. Jump up^Small, E.E., & Rentsch, J.R. (2010) Shared Leadership in Teams: A Matter of Distribution. Journal of Personnel Psychology 9, 4, 203211.19. Jump up^Mehra et al, 200620. Jump up^Mehra et al, 200621. Jump up^Bergman et al, 201222. Jump up^Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd Ed. London: Wiley23. Jump up^Carson et al24. Jump up^Carson et al, 200725. Jump up^Carson et al, 2007, p.122326. Jump up^Carson et al, 2007, p.122327. Jump up^Manz, C. C., & Sims H. P. Jr. (1987). Leading worker to lead themselves: The external leadership for self-managing work team. Administrative Science Quarterly, 106-129.28. Jump up^Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30,p. 26929. Jump up^Carson et al, 200730. Jump up^Carson et al, 200731. Jump up^Carson et al, 2007, p.122432. Jump up^Pearce & Sims, 200233. Jump up^Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 2, 1, 66-96; Carson et al, 200734. Jump up^Pearce and Sims, 2002; Pearce et al, 2004; Ensley, Hmieleski, & Pearce, 200635. Jump up^Mehra et al, 200636. Jump up^Bergman et al, 2012; Pearce and Sims, 200237. Jump up^Bergman et al, 2012Further reading[edit]1. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. London: Free Press.ISBN 978-07432155272. Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S.W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams, The Journal of Social Psychology, 152, 1, 17-42.PMID 223087593. Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research.International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 3, 251-269.4. Carson, J. B, Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 5, 1217-1234.5. Crainer, S. (2000). The Management Century. New York: Jossey-Bass.ISBN 978-07879522426. Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. & Packendorff, J. (2007) Shared leadership: A post-heroic perspective on leadership as a collective construction. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 1, 40-67.7. Crevani, L., Lindgren, M. & Packendorff, J. (2010) Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, 1, 77-86.8. Denis, J-L., Langley, A. & Sergi, V. (2012) Leadership in the plural. The Academy of Management Annals, 6, 1, 211-283.9. Gibb, C. A., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (1954). Leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons ASIN B001JKIIF410. Gupta, V. K., Huang, R., & Niranjan, S. (2010). A longitudinal examination of the relationship between team leadership and performance.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17, 4, 335-350.11. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The Social Psychology of Organizations, 2nd Ed. London: WileyISBN 978-047102355512. Kirkman, B. L., & Benson, R. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. The Academy of Management Journal, 42, 1, 58-74.13. McShane, S., & Von Glinow, M. (2009). Organizational Behavior, 5th Ed. London: McGraw-Hill/IrwinISBN 978-007338123714. Nielsen, J. S. (2004). The myth of leadership: Creating leaderless organizations. New York: Davies-Black Publishing15. Northouse, P. G. (2009). Leadership: Theory and practice, 5th Ed. London: Sage PublicationsISBN 978-141297488216. Pearce, C.L., & Sims, H.P. (2001) Shared leadership: toward a multi-level theory of leadership. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, 7, 115139.17. Small, E.E., & Rentsch, J.R. (2010) Shared Leadership in Teams: A Matter of Distribution.Journal of Personnel Psychology9, 4, 203211.18. Sivasubramaniam, N., Murray, W. D., Avolio, B. J., & Jung, D. I. (2002). A longitudinal model of the effects of team leadership and group potency on group performance. Group & Organization Management, 2, 1, 66-96.19. Yukl, G.A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations. New York: Prentice HallISBN 978-0132424318

The relationship between followers' perceived quality of relationship and preferred leadership styleDissertationAuthor: David P. NotgrassAbstract:Leaders and followers are both essential elements within the leadership process. While leaders have been widely studied, there has been limited research devoted to followers and their role in the leadership process. This quantitative study examined the relationship between followers' perception of quality of relationship with their leaders and followers' preferredleadership stylefrom their leaders among 105Certified Public Accountantsworking in the United States for U.S. companies with more than 1,000 employees. Three self-reporting scales were used to measure the study's variables: the LMX-7 questionnaire was used to measure follower's perceived quality of dyadic relationship with their leader and the MLQ (Form-5X) was used to measure follower's preference for transformational leadership behaviors and transactional leadership behaviors from their leader. Pearson product moment of correlation ( r ) and t -tests determined positive, significant levels of relationship between follower's perceived quality of relationship and follower's preference for transformational leadership style as well as between follower's perceived quality of relationship and follower's preference for the transactional leadership subscale factor of contingent reward. The study also found that the level of preference for transactional leadership remained relatively consistent, regardless of the quality of relationship. Limitations to the study resulting from the uniquely Western culture and professional requirements of the sample group and recommendations for future research across more diverse groups and examining consequences resulting from followers having or not having their level of preference for leadership behaviors were discussed.1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Introduction to the ProblemThe Hogg (2001) assertion that leaders exist because of followers and followers exist because of leaders (p. 185) illustrates the symbiotic nature of the relationship between leaders and followers. Most current definitions of leadership also include both leaders and followers with the concept that leadership is a process whereby leaders influence followers thoughts and/or behavior (Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Although both leaders and followers are essential to the leadership process, there has been a division in research oriented toward understanding leaders and followers. While there has been a long running focus on research aimed toward understanding leaders as evidenced through the development of leader-centric theories including trait theory (Stogdill, 1948), skills theory (Katz, 1955), behavioral theory (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fleishman, 1953), contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967), and situational theory (Hershey & Blanchard, 1969), there has been a lesser, separate research focus on understanding followers (Baker, 2007; Yukl). Burns (1978) noted this division between leader-centric and follower-centric research focus in his charge that one of the most serious failures in the study of leadership is the bifurcation between the literature on leadership and the literature on followership (p. 3). Researchers are increasingly recognizing the need to understand the role and significance of followers within the leadership process. Kelley (1988) highlighted the role of followers with his assertion not all corporate success is due to leadership (p. 1) in his argument that organizational success is due in part on how well their followers follow (p. 2). Hollander (1992a) spoke about the essential interdependence of leadership and2 followership (p. 71) in his analysis of leadership as a process within the contextual elements of the qualities and responsiveness of followers, with their needs, expectations, and perceptions (p. 71). Uhl-Bien (2006) noted that organizations continue to become more complex, increasing our need to develop our understanding of what are the relational dynamics by which leadership is formed throughout the workplace? (p. 672). Leadership theories have progressively included leaders and followers, as well as their relationship within the leadership process (Dansereau, Jr., Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 1995, 2008). Leader Member Exchange (LMX), a relational leadership theory, recognizes the elements of leader, follower, and the quality of their relationship (Graen & Uhl-Bien). The relationship-based approach to leadership recognizes a two-way influence relationship between a leader and a follower aimed primarily at attaining mutual goals (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 656). While there is recognition of a two-way influence, research has predominately been leader-centric with leadership as an independent variable with a resulting follower response as a dependent variable (Dvir & Shamir, 2003). The focus on leader-centric research has limited the understanding of both the follower and the relationship within the leadership process (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Uhl-Bien, 2006). To overcome that limitation, the objective of the proposed research was to test the relationship between the followers perception of the quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and the followers preference of leadership style from that same leader, which had not yet been explored in the research literature.3 Background of the StudyThe research interest in followers and followership has helped to increase understanding followers and the roles and significance they have in the overall leadership process. Research studies incorporating followers and followership have included perspectives from passive and active followers, the role of social exchange between followers and leaders, individual and group relational theory, and individual and social identity. Much of the leadership theories developed in the 20 th century as late as the 1970s was leader-centric, reflecting the view that leaders actively led and subordinates, later called followers, passively and obediently followed (Baker, 2007, p. 56). Life-cycle theory (Hershey & Blanchard, 1969) and path-goal theory (House, 1971) are both examples of the active leader/passive follower approach that prescribed leaders actively choose leadership styles in response to their understanding of some aspect (maturity level, goal relevance, etc.) of their followers. Kelley (1988) elevated the thought of active followership with his assertion that organizational leaders successes are due in part to how well their followers follow (p. 2) in pursuit of organizational goals. While Kelleys (1988) article drew interest and attention to the role of followers, he was reinforcing the concept of the significance of followers in the leadership process already noted by others (Baker, 2007). Hollander and Julian (1969), drawing from the concept that relationships exist as exchanges of desirable outcomes between leaders and followers (Blau, 1960; Homans, 1958), described how leader-follower transactions result in two-way influences affecting both leader and follower. Dansereau, Jr., Graen, and Haga (1975) applied this concept in4 the recognition of dyadic relationships forming between leader and followers. Leader- member exchange theory (LMX), based on this type of two-way influence relationship, focuses on how these relationships develop (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) and the benefits these relationships bring (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Gerstner & Day, 1997). LMX is recognized as the predominate relational leadership theory (Liden, Sparrowe, & Wayne, 1997; Uhl- Bien, 2006) and provides the recommended method for measuring the quality of relationship between leader and follower (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). As part of the body of research recognizing the role of followers within the leader-follower relationship, researchers have examined followers perceptions and preferences. A number of studies have focused on the followers leadership style preference of their leader. Frew (1977) found a general preference for a mixture of moderately democratic and moderately autocratic leadership style. Vecchio and Boatwright (2002) determined relationships between both situational and gender variables and followers preference of leadership styles and suggested understanding employees expectations for leader behaviors may help to optimize leader-follower involvement. Moss and Ngu (2006) found relationships between followers personality traits and their leadership preference, and noted that not all employees preferred transformational leadership to the same extent. Dulin (2008), as part of studying leadership preferences of generational groupings, asserted it is critical for leaders to understand and address generational differences in preferences in order to find ways to lead a multi-generational workforce. These researchers represent an increasing recognition of the need to understand followers preferences of leadership styles.5 Statement of the ProblemWhile leadership theories have recognized the existence of leaders, followers, and relationship as elements within the leadership process, little research attention has been directed to the understanding of followers within the leadership context (Dvir & Shmir, 2003; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001; Yukl, 2002). There have been numerous recent calls for research to add to the body of knowledge to more fully understand followers within the leadership context. Minimal research attention has been directed toward understanding follower preferences for leadership styles (Moss & Ngu, 2006; Vechio & Boatwright, 2002). No research study to date had examined the relationship between a followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and that followers preferred leadership style from that same leader. This study was a nonexperimental, quantitative study to determine if there is a correlational relationship between the independent variable (followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader) and dependent variable (that followers preferred leadership style from that same leader). Justification for the StudyThere have been multiple calls for more research with the goal of gaining a greater understanding of followers within the leadership process. Graen and Uhl-Bien (1995) acknowledged the imbalance of research toward the leadership domain and issued a call for research in their analysis in leadership research to date, a plethora of studies have been conducted on the leader, but in comparison there has been a dearth of studies in the other two areas. Clearly, more research is needed on followers and the leadership relationship (p. 222). Russell (2003), in her research into leadership as a relational6 process, suggested whilst there is increasing recognition of relationships in leadershipfollowers are too frequently treated as a single group. This suggests leaders in the field need to be aware of the various followership groups within their particular organization, and their relationships and motivations (p. 31). Uhl-Bien (2006) declared relationships rather than authority, superiority, or dominance appear to be the key to new forms of relationships (p. 672) and suggested the need to address the question what are the relational dynamics by which leadership is developed throughout the workplace? (p. 672). Avolio (2007) called for more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building in which he asserted leadership theory and research has reached a point in its development of integration considering the dynamic interplay between leaders and followers, taking into account the prior, current and emerging context for continued progress to be made in advancing both the science and practice of leadership (p. 25). This study addressed the research needs using a unique approach utilizing followership theory, leader-member exchange theory,transactional leadershiptheory, and transformational leadership theory, and by doing so expanded the body of knowledge in the areas of followers, leaders, and their relationship. Deficiencies in the Previous ResearchYukl (2002) addressed the lack of research aimed toward followers in his analysis, only a small amount of research and theory emphasizes characteristics of the follower (p. 16). Vecchio and Boatwright (2002) speak to the lack of follower-focused research, specifically the lack of research aimed toward understanding follower preferences of leadership styles in their description of the state of leadership research: there are areas where our knowledge base remains deficient. One of these areas is the7 topic of subordinate preferences for styles of supervision (p. 327). Dvir and Shamir (2003) speak to the lack of research using followers characteristics as independent variables with the propensity for research to typically include followers characteristics as dependent variables affected by the leaderrather on follower characteristics, predispositions, or attitudes (p. 328). Minimal research attention has been directed toward understanding follower preferences for leadership styles (Moss & Ngu, 2006; Vechio & Boatwright, 2002). No research attention had been directed toward determining if there is a relationship between followers perception of their relationship with their direct leader and followers preference for a specific leadership style from that same leader. Purpose of the StudyIn response to the need to more fully understand the follower within the leadership context, the purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and followers preferred leadership style from that same leader. The correlations under study were 1) perceived quality of relationship and preference for a transformational leadership style and 2) perceived quality of relationship and preference for a transactional leadership style. The independent variable in this correlation were the followers perception of the quality of relationship with their leader and the dependent variable were followers preference for leadership style (transactional, transformational) from that same leader. Research Question The research question in this correlational study was:8 Is there a relationship between a followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and that followers preferred leadership style from that same leader? Significance of the Study By examining the preferences of followers using a quantitative approach that includes followers, relationship, and leadership styles, we can better understand these three leadership elements. With the understanding of the level of existence of a relationship between followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader and their preferred leadership style from that leader, researchers can better develop research models to determine the effect this level of relationship may have on individual characteristics (ie. motivation, commitment, citizenship, performance, etc.) and organizational elements (ie. goal achievement, organizational conflict, turnover). Leaders can use this understanding to model their leadership behavior to support the leadership style preferences of their followers in order to improve their leadership effectiveness. Definition of TermsDyadic: term deriving from two individual units regarded as a pair, as in dyadicrelationship referring to the relationship between follower and leader (Yukl, 2002).Follower: the individual in the subordinate role in a formal supervisor/subordinate structure. Followership: term characterized as the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship between subordinates and superiors, and a response of the former to the latter (Kellerman, 2008, p. xxi).9 Leader: the individual in the supervisor role in a formal supervisor/subordinate structure. Leadership: process whereby one individual influences the thoughts and/or behavior of another (Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2002). Leadership style: predominate style of behaviors that a leader uses to influence the thoughts and/or behavior of another. Leader-Member Exchange theory: the most prominent relationship-based approach to leadership with a central concept that leadership occurs when leaders and followers are able to develop effective relationships (partnerships) that result in incremental influence and thus gain access to the many benefits these relationships bring (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p. 656). Member: term refers to the employee within the leader-member dyad. The terms member, follower, and subordinate shall be used interchangeably. Transactional leadership: Transactional leadership refers to a style of leadership marked by interactions between leader and follower in which the leader 1) recognizes the roles and tasks required for followers to reach desired outcomes and 2) recognizes the needs and desires of the follower, and 3) clarifies how the needs of the follower will be met (through rewards) if the follower expends effort required by the task (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Transformational leadership: Transformational leadership refers to a style of leadership marked by interactions between leader and follower in which the leader raises followers consciousness levels about the importance and value of designated outcomes and ways of achieving them. Leaders also motivate followers to10 transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of the mission and vision of the organization (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Assumptions and Limitations This study assumed that the participants made a sincere effort to complete the questionnaire in a manner that reflected 1) their perception of the quality of their relationship with their leader and 2) their preferred leadership style from that same leader. The study assumed that e-Rewards have processes in place to ensure 1) participants have proficient skill and ability to use e-Rewards proprietary online tool and 2) participants are providing thoughtful responses. A limitation of this study was that all participants in the study were volunteers, which may not have been truly representative of the population. A delimitation of the study was participation in the study was delimited to only Certified Public Accountants, employed at U.S. companies greater than 1,000 employees in size, and are members of the e-Rewards Market Research Panel. Certified Public Accountants are a unique professional group, licensed by each individual state, using similar guidelines for licensure. Applicants must generally hold a baccalaureate or graduate degree, conferred by a board-recognized institution of higher education; and complete at least 150 semester hours in board-recognized courses, including an accounting concentration. In addition to meeting the educational requirements, applicants must 1) be of good moral character, 2) pass the CPA Exam, and 3) meet the work experience requirements. Existing CPAs must also complete continuing education requirements to maintain their licenses (Texas Commission on Public Accountancy11 [TCPA], n.d.). Due to the unique requirements of the professional group, the results cannot be generalized across other work groups. A delimitation of the study is participation in the study was delimited to only followers and their leaders that are members of a uniquely Western culture. The surveys qualifying questions restrict respondents to those that physically resided in the United States and worked full-time for U.S. companies. These requirements limited this sample to both followers and their leaders being members of a uniquely Western culture and results cannot be generalized across cultures. This limitation is consistent with the Pailla, Scandura, and Williams (1999) finding in their study of the relationship between transformational leadership and LMX to organizational justice and job satisfaction across five different national cultures. Included in Pailla et al.s finding was that differences existing between Western and non-Western cultures and work-related values based on national culture impacted LMX outcomes. Nature of the Study This study investigated the relationship between followers perceived quality of relationship with their leader (direct supervisor) and followers preferred leadership style from that same leader. The population sample came from Certified Public Accountants, employed at U.S.companies over 1000 employees in size, and are members of the e- Rewards Market Research Panel. The study is classified as nonexperimental in that the researcher was unable to manipulate or control any factors that influence the responders, thus only having the capability to describe or uncover relationships between the two variables (McMillan, 2004). The study is classified as correlational in that it investigated a relationship between the two variables (Mertens, 2005). The study is classified as12 quantitative in that all variable data are measures established through quantitative responses to questionnaires and the study used statistical testing to determine a correlational relationship between the two variables (McMillan). Organization of the StudyThe research is organized into five chapters. Chapter one contains the introduction, background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, rationale, research questions, significance of the study, definition of the terms, assumptions and limitations of the study, and nature of the study. Chapter two presents a review of the literature. A review of the literature on followers and followership, a short history of the study of leadership, and a review of the literature on leader-member exchange theory, transactional leadership style, and transformational leadership style are discussed. Chapter three presents the methodology of the study including theresearch design, target population and sample, instrumentation and measures, data collection methodology, procedures and data analysis, validity and reliability of instruments to be used to collect the data, and ethical considerations in light of using human subjects as part of the study. Chapter four includes the analysis and results of the data collected. Chapter five includes the summary of the findings and interpretations of the results, including generalizations, limitations, implications, and recommendations. The paper concludes with the references and appendices containing correspondence, copies of instruments used, and other significant support documentation used as part the study.13 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW FollowershipKellerman (2008) provided a current definition of followership as the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship between subordinates and superiors, and a response of the former to the latter (p. xxi). Kellermans definition of followership includes the three elements (leader, follower, relationship) that have come to be common to many current studies of both leadership and followership (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 2004; Burns, 1978; Dansereau, Jr., Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Hollander, 2008; Hollander & Julian, 1969; Kellerman, 2008). Research focused on followership studies have included perspectives from active and passive followership, the role of social exchange in followership, individual and social identity, and individual and group relational theory. Passive and Active Followership Baker (2007), in her development of a theoretical foundation for a contemporary construct of followership, found that much of the leadership studies in the twentieth century were primarily focused on leaders and their active roles with passive followers. This leader-centric focus may have helped to perpetuate what Meindl, Ehrlich, and Dukerich (1985) referred to as the romance of leadership distorting what leaders do, what they are able to accomplish, and the general effects that they have on our lives (p. 79). Much of the active-leader/passive-follower research explored leaders traits, behaviors, and responses within situational contexts (Bass, 1990; Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2002). The research, while primarily leader-centric, did include consideration of certain14 aspects of the follower. Life-cycle theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) proposed leaders choose leadership styles across varying levels of directive and supportive behaviors in response to the followers maturity level as evidenced by their relative independence, ability to take responsibility, and achievement-motivation. Path-goal theory (House, 1971), based on expectancy theory, considers followers in suggesting effective leadership behaviors focused on 1) defining goals that are relevant and desirable to the follower, 2) helping to clarify the path to goal achievement, and 3) removing obstacles to goal achievement. Zierden (1980) proposed leaders develop personal leadership styles based on their understanding of followers perception of individual and organizational direction, methodology, and identification of self. Steger, Manners, and Zimmerer (1982) identified nine specific follower personality types across two axis (enhancement of self and protection of self) and linked management styles to each personality. Based on the premise that most followers can be effectively led if the leader is aware of what the followers want and what they fear (p. 25), managers would assess a subordinates personality and use a mixture of supportive and manipulative power to motivate employees (Steger et al., 1982). Other researchers recognized a variety of follower types in more active roles within the leader-follower relationship. Burns (1978) identified passive followers who offered undiscriminating support, participatory followers who offered selectively bargained support, and close followers who were in reality subleaders (p. 68). Hansen (1987) reinforced the thought that followers were more than passive elements in his illustration of the power of followers in their ability to confer legitimacy to the leader by granting them authority. Kelley (1988) raised the profile of active followership15 in his assertion organizations stand or fall partly on how well their leaders lead, but partly also on the basis of how well their followers follow (p. 2). He suggested leadership and followership are organizational roles by illustrating that most managers act as both leaders and followers within their organizations. He introduced the idea of effective followership through the identification of followers that would rate high in both critical thinking and levels of active followership and be distinguished as enthusiastic, intelligent, and self-reliant in the pursuit of the organizational goal (Kelley, p. 3). Relational Leadership Theory The term relational leadership describes the active roles of both leaders and followers within two-way influence relationships between leaders and followers (Uhl- Bien, 2006). Relational leadership is foundationally based in part on the concept of an exchange process between two parties. Exchange process, as applied in leadership studies, describes relationships existing as exchanges of desirable outcomes between leaders and individual followers (Blau, 1960; Cook & Whitmeyer, 1992; Homans, 1958). Hollander and Julian (1969) included the thought of exchanges as transactions occurring between leader and follower resulting in a two-way influence characterizing leader-follower relations (p. 387). Dansereau, Jr. et al., (1975) furthered this thought of two-way influence in their introduction of a dyadic relationship formed between leader and follower. Leader-member exchange theory is based on this type of two-way influence relationship as a central concept and focuses on how these relationships develop (Dienesch & Liden, 1986; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1991) and the benefits these relationships bring (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005; Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Gerstner & Day, 1997). This two-way influence creates interdependence between leader16 and follower. Hollander (1992b) suggested this relational interdependence reflects the ability for both leader and follower to generate rewards that are satisfying to the other and suggested the motivation for followers to follow with his identification of the common persisting element is the significant relational nature of the intangible rewards provided to followers by the leaders. This gets to the heart of motivations to follow (p. 48). Hollander, in his review of research recognizing a more active conception of followers, warned the leader-follower relationship seems to be affected by perceptions, misperceptions, and self-oriented biases on both parts (p. 43), and suggested leaders be aware and address follower expectations and perceptions. Social Identity Theory Another approach seeking to understand followers within the leadership process is social identity theory of leadership, based on the thought that social identity is implicated in forms of leadership and seeks to understand the linkage between the followers self- concept of identity and behavior in response to their leader (Collinson, 2006; Hogg, 2001). Social identity is the part of the individuals self-concept associated with their membership in social groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Tajfel, 1974) and leads to behavior oriented toward the interest of the group as opposed to the interest of the individual. Haslam and Platow, (2001) contended a leaders ability to bring about active followership is contingent on their ability to create collective interests associated with shared group social identity. Lord and Brown (2001) suggested leadership activities are most effective when there is a match between the social identity of the followers and activities of the leader that imply certain common values, with Hogg similarly suggesting that the most effective leaders are perceived as prototypical of the groups identity (p.

What Is Shared Leadership?Leadership is hard work.Good leadershipis really hard work. Todays dynamic, rapidly changing knowledge economy provides an ever-shifting landscape that requires multiple perspectives to navigate well.Exit the know-it-all, do-it-all leader.Enter the self-aware, in-touch connector that can share leadership by pulling people, resources and ideas together to get the job done.What is shared leadership?Marshall Goldsmithdescribes it this way in an excellentpost: Shared leadership involves maximizing all of the human resources in an organization by empowering individuals and giving them an opportunity to take leadership positions in their areas of expertise. With more complex markets increasing the demands on leadership, the job in many cases is simply too large for one individual. Sharing leadership isnt easy, but its definitely possible, and in many cases, highly successful.Goldsmith suggests ways to share leadership and maximize talent. Here are a few: Give power away to the most qualified individuals to strengthen their capabilities. Define the limits of decision-making power. Cultivate a climate in which people feel free to take initiative on assignments. Give qualified people discretion and autonomy over their tasks and resources and encourage them to use these tools. Dont second guess the decisions of those you have empowered to do so.As leaders, our job is to constantly move those people our organizations touch from strangers to acquaintances, from acquaintances to friends, and from friends to partners in our common mission. Sharing leadership usually provides the best pathway to true partnership.

Leadership-Member Exchange (LMX) TheoryInformal observation ofleadership behaviorsuggests that leaders action is not the same towards all subordinates. The importance of potential differences in this respect is brought into sharp focus by Graens leader-member exchange model, also known as the vertical dyad linkage theory. The theory views leadership as consisting of a number of dyadic relationships linking the leader with a follower. The quality of the relationship is reflected by the degree of mutual trust, loyalty, support, respect, and obligation.According to the theory, leaders form different kinds of relationships with various groups of subordinates. One group, referred to as the in-group, is favored by the leader. Members of in-group receive considerably more attention from the leader and have more access to the organizational resources. By contrast, other subordinates fall into the out-group. These individuals are disfavored by the leader. As such, they receive fewer valued resources from their leaders.

Leaders distinguish between the in-group and out-group members on the basis of the perceived similarity with respect to personal characteristics, such as age, gender, or personality. A follower may also be granted an in-group status if the leader believes that person to be especially competent at performing his or her job. The relationship between leaders and followers follows three stages: Role taking:When a new member joins the organization, the leader assesses the talent and abilities of the member and offers them opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities. Role making:An informal and unstructured negotiation on work-related factors takes place between the leader and the member. A member who is similar to the leader is more likely to succeed. A betrayal by the member at this stage may result in him being relegated to the out-groupThe LMX 7 scale assesses the degree to which leaders and followers have mutual respect for each others capabilities, feel a deepening sense ofmutual trust, and have a sense of strong obligation to one another. Taken together, these dimensions determine the extent to which followers will be part of the leaders in-group or out-group.In-group followers tend to function as assistants or advisers and to have higher quality personalized exchanges with the leader than do out-group followers. These exchanges typically involve a leaders emphasis on assignments to interesting tasks, delegation of important responsibilities,information sharing, and participation in the leaders decisions, as well as special benefits, such as personal support and support and favorable work schedules.Strengths of LMX TheoryLMX theory is an exceptional theory of leadership as unlike the other theories, it concentrates and talks about specific relationships between the leader and each subordinate.

LMX Theory is a robust explanatory theory.

LMX Theory focuses our attention to the significance of communication in leadership. Communication is a medium through which leaders and subordinates develop, grow and maintain beneficial exchanges. When this communication is accompanied by features such as mutual trust, respect and devotion, it leads toeffective leadership.

LMX Theory is very much valid and practical in its approach.

Criticisms of LMX TheoryLMX Theory fails to explain the particulars of how high-quality exchanges are created.

LMX Theory is objected on grounds of fairness and justice as some followers receive special attention of leaders at workplace and other followers do not.

ImplicationsAccording to many studies conducted in this area, it has been found that leaders definitely do support the members of the in-group and may go to the extent of inflating their ratings on poor performance as well. This kind of a treatment is not given to the members of the out-group. Due to the favoritism that the in-group members receive from their leaders, they are found to perform their jobs better and develop positive attitude towards their jobs in comparison to the members of the out-group. Thejob satisfactionof in-group members is high and they perform effectively on their jobs. They tend to receive more mentoring from their superiors which helps them in their careers. For these reasons, low attrition rate, increased salaries, and promotion rates are associated with the in-group members in comparison to that of the out-group members.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Vertical Dyad Linkage Modelby Daria Kelly Uhlig,Demand MediaThe Vertical Dyad Linkage Model explains the dynamics of the relationships leaders form with each of their group subordinates, or members. It states that two types of relationships develop and it categorizes the relationships into two subgroups. The in-group is the leader's inner circle. Its members are entrusted with higher levels of responsibility and a greater degree of influence over the leader's decision making. The in-group also has better access to resources. The out-group consists of those who have failed to curry the leader's favor. They have less influence on the leader's decisions, less responsibility and less access to resources. Although the theory gives useful insights on the factors that drive the relationships between leaders and subordinate group members, it also falls short in some notable ways.Ads by GoogleSurveyMonkeyOur Paid Accounts Offer Terrific Functionality. Upgrade To Paid Now!surveymonkey.comEstablishing RelationshipsThe Vertical Dyad Linkage Model defines a three-stage process for the way relationships develop between leaders and members. In the role-taking stage, leaders assess members' abilities and give them opportunities to prove themselves. In the role-making stage, leaders and members negotiate informally on issues related to the workplace. Routinization occurs as relationship patterns between leaders and members solidify. It's during this stage that members ultimately are relegated to the in-group or out-group. The group a member lands in tends to be the group where the member remains.Subgroup MembershipBeginning with the role-making stage, the more similarities there are between a leader and a member, the more likely the member is to land in an in-group. These similarities include factors such as personality and work ethic, but they aren't limited to them. In fact, the consulting company Changing Minds notes that similarities in gender, culture and ethnicity makesuccessful relationshipsmore likely as well. In addition, in-group members are more likely to take on administrative tasks that support the leader and demonstrate loyalty.Related Reading:Advantages & Disadvantages of Affiliation Marketing ModelsAdvantagesThe primary advantage of Vertical Dyad Theory is the ease with which it can be applied to the workplace. For example, leaders who recognize the nature of their relationships can assess whether each in-group member is deserving of the perks their membership brings. The business tutorialwebsite ManagementStudy Guide.com notes the tendency to inflate in-group members' performance. Perhaps more importantly, the leader can identify missed opportunities to reward deserving out-group members with increased responsibility and resources. Since the benefits that in-group members enjoy lead to greater job satisfaction and lower attrition rates, and in-group members tend to work harder and more loyally to retain their favored status, bringing the out-group in creates a win-win situation. Furthermore, the comparatively heterogeneous nature of many in-groups necessitates assessment to ensure diversity among the workers most and least likely to succeed.DisadvantagesVertical Dyad Theory assumes that all followers start out at the same baseline, equally worthy of a leader's trust and reliance. In practice, every worker is different. In addition, the theory has the potential to perpetuate the conditions that lead to a subordinate's subgroup placement. For example, an inner-circle member who gets plum assignments and input on decision making has more opportunity for advancement than does an outer-circle member who has few opportunities and is largely ignored by the leader -- regardless of how the out-group member's capabilities may have developed over time. Finally, while the theory focuses on the individual relationships between leaders and followers, it fails to address the effects of these relationships ongroup dynamics.