the evaluation of a paradigm: the critical examination of the influence of followership styles and...

THE EVALUATION OF A PARADIGM: THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION

OF THE INFLUENCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES

AND COURAGEOUS FOLLOWER ATTRIBUTES

ON HOTEL CUSTOMER-CONTACT EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION

by

Terry Fobbs

KEITH GRANT, Ph.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair

LISA BARROW, D.M., Committee Member

ABDUL KAISSI, D.M., Committee Member

Raja K. Iyer, Ph.D., Interim Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Capella University

April 2010

UMI Number: 3403225

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3403225

Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

Abstract

This study examined the statistical relationship between followership style (Kelley, R.E.,

The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers

who lead themselves, 1992) and courageous follower attributes (Dixon, E. N., An

exploration of the relationship of organizational level and measures of follower

behaviors. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville,

Alabama, 2003), and the influence of followership style on the job satisfaction, (Spector,

P.E., Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences, 1997) on hotel

customer-contact employee job satisfaction. The premise of this research was the certain

followership styles would exhibit more courageous follower attributes than others, for

example exemplary followers would demonstrate more courageous follower attributes

than conformist followers. The second premise was that there was a statistical

relationship between followership style and hotel customer-contact employee job

satisfaction. An on-site group administration of the three survey instruments was

conducted to collect data to determine the level of courageous follower attributes,

demographics, reported followership style and level of job satisfaction of the entire

population of customer-contact employees of a small Canadian high-end luxury hotel and

resort chain. The univariate analysis of job satisfaction revealed high dissatisfaction with

nature of work and organizational communication and that nearly two thirds of the

respondents self-reported as exemplary followers. The study found that there was a

statistical relationship between followership style and courageous follower attributes,

indicating that the two constructs of followership style, independent critical thinking and

active engagement had a direct bearing on the level of courageous follower behaviors

displayed, and that all followership styles did display these behaviors to some extent. The

study also found that demographics had no main effect overall on job satisfaction, except

for some facets and that followership style had no effect on job satisfaction except for the

facet of nature of work. The principal conclusions of the study being that overall,

followership style does not influence job satisfaction of hotel customer –contact

employees, but there is a strong relationship between followership style and the level of

courageous follower behavior demonstrated. Limitations of the study, implications for

future research and recommendations for practice are also discussed.

iii

Dedication

I want to dedicate this paper to my Heavenly Father and His Son, my Lord and

Savior Jesus Christ. It was through their love, support, blessings, and answers to prayer

that I was able to overcome many trials and tribulations of health, employment, and

personal tragedy to reach this major milestone in my life. To them I give my love and the

glory. I dedicate this work to my loving wife LeAnn for her unfailing love and support in

seeing me through this arduous journey, and basically no life for the past four years plus,

so I could be a PhD. Love you Honey! I dedicate this work to my mother, Geraldine J.

Fobbs, for her unfailing love, support and prayers for all of my accomplishments. Thank

you Mama! I love you! I dedicate this work to my brothers, Evin and Kevin, and sisters,

Cheryl and Angie and sister-in-law, Cheri, for their love and support for everything I

have done. I love you all! I dedicate this work to my children: Monique, Angelique,

Claudia, Sondra, Tamara, and Natalie, stepchildren: Carl, Danielle, Abigail; nieces and

nephews: Katherine, Seann, Michael, Arndrea, Lori, Haley, Jesica and Cristy,

grandchildren: Mercedes, Phoenix, Spencer and Jadyn, as my legacy and example to

perseverance, excellence, hard work and dedication-“So let it be written-So let it be

done!” Love you! I dedicate this work to the memory of my late father, Booker Terry

Fobbs, for his example in my life and his love for me. Thank you Daddy! Love you! I

also dedicate this work to memory of my late Uncle William (Brother) who was always

there for me in my youth. Love you, Uncle Brother! Finally, I want to dedicate this work

to my cousins, Candy, Veta, Suzette, Deborah, and Cindy, specifically and to the rest of

y’all generally, (because I am running out of room!) for all of your love and support

during this PhD journey. Love you!

iv

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the following individuals: my mentor Dr. Keith Grant as

the Chair of my committee for his patience, encouragement wisdom and guidance to

make this part and final part of my PhD journey possible; Dr. Abdul Kaissi and Dr. Lisa

Barrow, the other members of my committee for their invaluable assistance and guidance

in helping me through this process; Mr. Ira Chaleff, Executive Coaching and Consulting

Associates for his insight into the nature of followership; Dr. Robert E. Kelley, Carnegie-

Mellon University and Dr. Eugene Dixon, East Carolina University for their input and

assistance in the use of their survey instruments in my research, Ms. Kathline Holmes,

President, Gailforce Human Resource Solutions for her friendship, support and

invaluable assistance in my research!; Mr. Terry Schneider, Mr. John LeBleu, Mr.

Benjamin Leversedge, Ms. Kim Nau, Ms. Monique Smit and Ms. Laura Nutini for their

invaluable assistance during the conduct of my research, thank you so much!; Dr. Bruce

Dale, Dr. Bryan Ritchie and Dr. Lindon Robison, Michigan State University and their

families, Rick Winder, George Owen, Dr. Mary Miller, Renee and Mike Arntz, Nadine

Brown-Uddin, Dr. Barbara Bolin, Deb LaPine, Bobbi Woods, Mary Lou Mason, Vicky

Garcia, Russ Hicks, Tristan Harrington and Dave and Cassie Quarnberg, for their

invaluable support, love, friendship and encouragement during this PhD journey, Dr.

Cherice Montgomery, Brigham Young University and Dr. Laura Ann Migliore for their

friendship and support, Mr. Ronald R. Farr and Ms. Rita Canady, my supervisors who

have always given me encouragement and support in this effort, Major General (retired)

Robert W. Smith III and his wife Linda, Jim and Joanne Peppiattt-Combes, Dr. John

Zappala, Central Michigan University and his wife Shirley and Major (retired) Deanna

v

Sinclair who have given me their love, support and prayers every step of the way, Dr.

Diane Bandow who is an icon to me for her support of my journey, my faithful pet cat

Bootsie and my late pet cat Candy, for staying up with me during coursework,

comprehensive examination and dissertation writing late nights to early mornings, my

Capella PhD support group- fellow PhD candidate, soon to be Dr. Elyse Jurman and Dr.

Kristi Dean, who have been great and dear friends who have become a second family to

me and all of my other friends whom I cannot name, because there is no more room, but

whose love, support and prayers have lifted me on eagle’s wings during this entire

journey. You know who you are, I know who you are and Heavenly Father knows who

you are! Thanks to each and everyone one of you. I could not have done it without you!

vi

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables ix

List of Figures x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Study 2

Statement of the Problem 3

Purpose of the Study 5

Rationale 6

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 11

Definition of Terms 12

Assumptions and Limitations 15

Nature of the Study 17

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 18

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 20

Introduction 20

Overview of Leadership Versus Followership-Which is More Important? 21

Analyzing and Synthesizing Definitions of Followership 26

Followership Interactions, Attributes, and Styles 33

Followership Attributes Not Associated with Followership Styles 41

Followership Styles and Associated Behavioral Attributes 49

vii

Leadership Concepts and Followership 72

Analysis of Transformational and Servant Leader Concepts 74

Analysis of Transformational and Servant Leadership 80

Job Satisfaction and Followership 84

Job Satisfaction Theoretical Performance and Supporting Research 86

Follower-Leader Interaction and the Influence on Follower Job Satisfaction 92

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 96

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 96

Research Design 96

Sample 97

Setting 98

Instrumentation, Variables, and Levels of Measurement 99

Data Collection 106

Treatment/Intervention 107

Data Analysis 107

Validity and Reliability 108

Ethical Considerations 117

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 119

Purpose of the Study 119

Data Collection and Setting 119

Section 1: Descriptive Statistics 121

Section 2: Hypothesis Testing 125

Section 3: Conclusion 134

viii

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 135

Research Overview 135

Research Questions 136

Hypotheses Tested 136

Setting and Sample 138

Instrumentation and Data Collection 140

Discussion of Findings 142

Conclusions of Hypotheses Testing and Evaluation 145

Limitations of the Study 151

Implications for Future Research 154

Recommendations for Practice 156

Conclusion 158

REFERENCES 160

APPENDIX A. THE FOLLOWERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE 174

APPENDIX B. THE FOLLOWER PROFILE 181

APPENDIX C. THE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY 194

ix

List of Tables

Table 1. Relationship of Followership Style to Followership Questionnaire Scores 66 Table 2. Dixon’s (2003) Follower Profile Matrix 100 Table 3. JSS Facets and Subscale Contents 104 Table 4 Factor Analysis of Kelley’s (1992) Followership Questions 113 Table 5 Internal Consistency/Reliability for the Job Satisfaction Survey 116 Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Employees 121 Table 7. Respondents’ Followership Profile and Style 123 Table 8. Job Satisfaction Survey Responses 124 Table 9. Results of Kruskal-Wallis-Test 126 Table 10 MANCOVA Multivariate Tests (c) 127 Table 11 MANCOVA Test of Between Subjects Effects 128 Table 12 MANCOVA Pair-wise Comparisons 132 Table 13 Correlations Analysis Results 133 Table 14 Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire 141 Table 15 Survey Key-The Followership Questionnaire 141 Table 16 Survey Key-Job Satisfaction Survey 142 Table 17 Revised Survey Key and Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire 155

x

List of Figures

Figure 1. Seven Paths to Followership 30

Figure 2. Dimensional Relationships of Followership Styles 51

Figure 3. Followership Styles 65

Figure 4. The Theoretical Model 87

Figure 5. Job Characteristics Model 90

Figure 6. Heuristic Model 91

Figure 7. Followership Styles and Scoring 102

1

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

Organizations are seeking various ways to improve the delivery of customer

service, especially in the hotel industry. With all things being equal, customer-focused

service has been the determining factor for many hotel patrons. The question these

organizations face is: How do you motivate the workforce to deliver consistent high

quality service? Chains such as Marriot International have long focused on the employee

as the critical link in providing consistent high quality customer-focused service. The

organizational culture known as the Marriott Way has a simple mantra from the words of

the founder J. Willard Marriott, “Take care of your employees and they will take care of

your customers” (Marriott International, 2009). However, some articles have focused

from the perspective of the senior leader on how this is done, but not from the viewpoint

of the customer-contact employee (Greger & Peterson, 2000; Gregersen & Black, 2002;

Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998).

The literature is replete with several examples that demonstrate a connection to

leadership and the quality of customer service, (Chowdary & Saraswat, 2003; Gerhardt,

2006; Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005; Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz & Niles-Jolly, 2005).

Other research studies have demonstrated that there is a correlation with transformational

leadership, employee commitment and employee satisfaction (Emery & Barker, 2007),

transformational leadership, employee satisfaction and customer service (Heskett, Sasser

& Schlesinger, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1991) and transformational

leadership and organizational culture (van Bentum & Stone, 2005).

2

However, the examination of employee job satisfaction through the lens of

followership versus leadership is both a research and theoretical challenge since the focus

of many research studies is based on leadership theories (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

Background of the Study

Paradigms of organizational behavior and theory focus on hierarchal structure,

power and authority. For example, Bierstadt asserts social power being defined as group

sociological dominance coupled with the ability to employ force (Bierstadt, 1950).

Bierstadt differentiates power as a sociological concept, whereas dominance is

psychological. The author asserted that power is not a component of prestige, but that the

reverse is true. The author further asserted that there is a clear distinction between

influence and power. Power is coercive and requires submission, whereas influence is

persuasive and submission is voluntary. This concept provides three definitions of power,

force and authority as they relate to the concept of social power. Power is the ability to

employ force or sanctions and force is the actual manifestation of power. Authority is

associated with organizational status or position that has the ability to exercise control or

command over other organizational members (Bierstadt, 1950).

Emerson argued that social power is power dependence, balancing relationships

that lend themselves to processes leading to the formation of groups that in turn lead to

power relations that evolve into coalitions that bestow limited legitimized power

(authority), status, group norms, and prescribed roles by coalition members. The theory

treats participants in these power dependence relationships as actors in a power-network.

The hypothetical values measuring the motivational measurement of group members in

3

power relationships seeking balance is based upon the values placed upon mutual

dependence and the values the actors placed on their perceptions of who has power, who

does not, and who should be given authority (Emerson, 1962).

Vanagunas, citing Weber, argued that organizational power relationships fell into

three categories of: (a) traditional authority that is based on a belief system where those

exercising authority are authorized to do so based on established tradition; (b)

rational/legal authority where those exercising authority are authorized to do so based on

established normative rules; and finally (c) charismatic authority, that is bestowed upon

an individual by the devotion of his or her followers based on that individual’s exemplary

or exceptional actions, sanctity or heroism and normative order or patterns ordained by

that individual (Vanagunas, 1989).

Statement of the Problem

The literature has clearly detailed the effects and influence of leadership style and

attributes on organizational performance, employee job satisfaction, organizational

commitment and employee motivation (Bass & Bass, 2008; Emery & Barker, 2007;

Flood, et.al, 2000; Gerhardt, 2006; Miller, 2007;Walumba, F., Orwa, B., Wang, P. &

Lawler, J., 2005). Research has detailed the established relationships between leadership

and followership (Beckerleg, 2002; Dixon, 2003; Pack 2001; Ricketson, 2008; Vrba,

2008).

Greger and Peterson argued that with the advent of globalization and the necessity

for travel, hotel customers seek not only great accommodations but service to match. The

competition for the business traveler is fierce and the common denominator with all

4

things being equal, (i.e. facilities, location, amenities), is good customer service (Greger

& Peterson, 2000).

The pressure of competitive forces and shrinking market share have forced hotel

firms to examine what motivates customer-contact employees to deliver service that

exceeds the customer’s expectations and determine what type of employee is required

that is sufficiently motivated and have the organizational commitment to deliver

exceptional customer service. The service industry has come to the realization that in

order to remain competitive, just meeting customer expectations is simply not enough

anymore and that the major factor in employee motivation in providing quality customer

service, especially in the hotel industry is leadership (Chang, 2006; Greger & Peterson,

2000; Gregersen, Morrison & Black, 1998).

However, the literature shows that little research has been conducted that

addresses the influence of followership style and attributes on organizational

effectiveness, employee job satisfaction, employee commitment, and organizational

performance (Chaleff, 2003, Kelley, 1992, 2008; Pack, 2001). Specifically, the literature

is silent on research that addresses the influence of followership style (Kelley, 1992) and

courageous follower attributes (Chaleff, 2003; Dixon, 2003) on customer-contact

employee job satisfaction.

The problem is that there is insufficient knowledge in the service industry in

general and the hotel industry in particular, regarding how the followership styles and

courageous follower attributes of their customer-contact employees influence their job

satisfaction. This gap in knowledge makes it difficult to evaluate the full effectiveness of

5

new and established programs to improve employee job satisfaction and organizational

commitment (Chaleff, 2008; Jaussi, Stepfanovich & Devlin, 2008; Uken, 2008).

Research is needed to determine the influence of followership style as outlined by

Kelley (1992) and courageous follower attributes as operationalized by Dixon (2003) on

customer-contact employee job satisfaction in order to address the gap in the body of

knowledge.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study will be to test the hypothesis that hotel customer-contact

employees who perceive they are exemplary or star followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) will

exhibit greater level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) and display greater

levels of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997) than those employees who perceive themselves

to be passive followers (sheep), conformist followers (yes-people), alienated followers or,

pragmatic followers (pragmatist) (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

The independent variables of exemplary followership, pragmatic followership,

alienated followership, conformist followership and passive followership (Kelley, 1992)

as measured by The Followership Questionnaire (TFQ) will be compared with the

dependent variables of five followership behaviors: (a) courage to assume responsibility,

(b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (d) courage to participate in

transformation, and (e) courage to leave as measured by The Follower Profile (TFP;

Dixon, 2003) to determine population distribution differences.

In the second part of the study, the independent variables of exemplary

followership style, pragmatic followership style, alienated followership style, conformist

6

followership style and passive followership style (Kelley, 1992) as measured by The

Followership Questionnaire (TFQ) will be compared with ten dependent variables of job

satisfaction as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) to determine

any correlations. The ten facets of job satisfaction will be addressed later in chapter 2.

For the purpose of this study, a customer-contact employee being defined as an

employee in the service industry who has direct personal contact with a customer

(Aggarwal & Gupta, 2005, Gremler & Brown, 1996; Sergeant & Frenkell, 2000).

Rationale

The majority of the cited studies on transformational leadership style and the

affect on employee motivation and/or customer service (Chang, 2006; Emery & Barker,

2007, Gerhardt, 2006; Jabnoun & Al Rasasi , 2005) all have viewed the transformational

leadership model through the objectivist epistemological lens that informed a positivist

theoretical perspective. The positivist theoretical perspective of these studies informed. a

quantitative methodology through the use of surveys to test their hypotheses using the

transformational leadership model components as independent variables while using

customer satisfaction, employee job satisfaction, or organizational commitment as

dependent variables and using a variety of statistical tools such as correlational analysis,

analysis of variance (ANOVA) or liner regression to obtain a measurable, quantified

fixed view of the relationships of the studied variables thus demonstrating positivist

philosophic assumptions (Barlett, 2005; Crotty, 2003; Fowler, 2003).

The following studies, while not examining job satisfaction or the

transformational leadership model, have examined followership style and behavioral

7

attributes using similar research methods of the transformational leadership and job

satisfaction studies (Baker; 2006; Bell, 2007; Colangelo, 2000; Dixon, 2003; Ray, 2006;

Vrba, 2008). These researchers took an objectivist epistemological stance that in turn

informed their positivist theoretical perspective in explaining their theory of followership

style and attributes. This perspective is indicated by the categorization of the theory’s

followership styles and attributes as independent and dependent variables to be used in a

quantitative research study to prove their hypothesis. The level of analysis embodied in

the theory is that of individuals and groups (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 2003; Holton III &

Burnett, 2005).

The behavioral attributes and followership styles is observed through the lens of a

positivist theoretical perspective. This theoretical perspective quantifies and measures a

cause and effect relationship that informs a quantitative research methodology using

statistical tools to analyze the observations (Creswell, 2003; Crotty, 2003; Holton III &

Burnett, 2005).

The problem statement identifies job satisfaction, followership style and

courageous follower attributes observable behaviors that will be the subject of research.

Previous research has indicated that these attributes can best be observed, measured and

analyzed using statistical tools to determine the extent of cause and effect relationships

and the predictability of behavior (Baker; 2006; Bell, 2007; Colangelo, 2000; Dixon,

2003; Ray, 2006; Spector, 1997; Vrba, 2008).

By replicating the proven methods and philosophic assumptions in these previous

studies, the use of a factorial design (Russ-Eft & Hoover, 2005) and a multiple analysis

of variance coupled with a correlational analysis will provide an objective, measurable

8

and fixed view of how: (a) followership style as independent variables affect followership

behaviors the dependent variables, (b)followership style as independent variables affect

hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction as dependent variables, and (c) how

followership style and behaviors as independent variables affect hotel customer-contact

employee job satisfaction as dependent variables. These tools are a proven and

demonstrated research tool in behavioral research (Henderson & Denison, as cited by

Bates, 2005). While the study is not examining all variables associated with customer

service such as facilities, location and availability of rooms, the correlational concept will

move closer in determining if there is a causality relationship between the quality of

customer service and followership style in a future research study.

In addition, Fowler (2003) stated that “the purpose of a survey is to produce

statistics that is a quantitative or numerical description about some aspects of the study

population” (p. 1). Barlett (2005) argued that survey research is used to collect

information from individuals in order to evaluate and measure organizationally relevant

constructs. Spector (1997) asserts that measurements of job satisfaction are quantitative

construct facets of attitudes and perceptions, making them perfect candidates for

statistical analysis using surveys.

Research Questions

The purpose of research questions is to specifically focus the efforts of the

researcher and provide a framework in which to design the research to address the

problem (Creswell, 2003; Swanson, 2005). The proposed research provides such a focus

9

and framework to examine the influence of followership styles and courageous follower

attributes on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.

Phase 1: Research Question:

Are The Follower Profile (TFP) measured indicators of followership behavior the

same for all followership styles of hotel customer-contact employees?

Phase 1 Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses using the Kruskal-Wallis test:

Null Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the distribution of courage to assume

responsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in

transformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for exemplary versus

pragmatic versus alienated versus conformist versus passive followership styles of hotel

customer-contact employees.

Alternate Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in the distribution of courage to assume






What is the correlation between exemplary, pragmatic, alienated, conformist and

passive followership styles and hotel first line customer-contact employee job

satisfaction?

10

Phase 2 Research Hypotheses

Hypotheses tested using correlation and multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)

MANCOVA Analysis: DDV= demographic data as control variables

Null Hypothesis predicts that DDV will not interact with hotel customer-contact

employee job satisfaction variables.

Alternate Hypothesis: predicts that DDV will interact with hotel customer-contact

employee job satisfaction variables

Correlation Analysis

Null Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between exemplary followership style and

hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.

Alternate Hypothesis 2: There is a correlation between exemplary followership style and


Null Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between pragmatic followership style and


Alternate Hypothesis 3: There is a correlation between pragmatic followership style and


Null Hypothesis 4: There is no correlation between alienated followership style hotel

customer-contact employee job satisfaction.

Alternate Hypothesis 4: There is a correlation between alienated followership style and


Null Hypothesis 5: There is no correlation between conformist followership style and


11

Alternate Hypothesis 5: There is a correlation between conformist followership style and


Null Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between passive followership style and hotel


Alternate Hypothesis 6: There is a correlation between passive followership style and f


The two phases of the research study examines the relationship of followership

style and courageous follower attributes to one another and their influence on hotel

customer-contact employee job satisfaction. The first phase using the Kruskal-Wallis test,

examines whether measured indicators of courageous followership behavior is the same

for all followership styles of hotel customer-contact-employees. The second phase of the

research study first uses a multiple analysis of co-variance (MANCOVA) to determine if

participant demographics will have an effect on the dependent variable of job

satisfaction. The next step following this analysis will be to determine if using a

correlational analysis examines the correlational relationship between exemplary,

pragmatic, alienated, conformist, and passive followership styles on hotel customer-

contact employee job satisfaction.

Significance of the Study

This study will provide an in-depth view of how followership style and attributes

influences job satisfaction from the viewpoint of the follower on hotel customer-contact

employee job satisfaction. As previously stated, several other studies have demonstrated

that there is a strong relationship between followership style and attributes and leadership

12

perceptions and style and organizational performance (Bell, 2007; Deckert, 2007; and

Pitron, 2008) while some studies have been singularly focused on how transformational

leadership style has been successful in motivating customer-contact employees deliver

quality customer service in hospitals (Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005); in the retail industry

(Gerhardt, 2006), and in the banking and retail food industry (Emery & Barker, 2007).

Other studies have demonstrated from the follower viewpoint how employee job

satisfaction is crucial in providing quality customer service, (Hallowell, Schlesinger &

Zormitsky, as cited by Gerhardt, 2006); Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997;

Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry, 1991) but the literature is relatively silent on the

examination of job satisfaction of hotel customer-contact employees strictly from the

viewpoint of the follower. However, this research study will provide an insight of the

enhancement of hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction through an

understanding of the influence of the employees’ followership style and key followership

behavioral attributes, provide a means of improving organizational climate and culture,

employee and leadership development and ultimately improving overall customer service

in this important sector of the service industry.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions are provided for these terms used throughout the study

to provide an understanding and context to the research and concepts presented in the

literature review.

• Alienated follower. These followers can think for themselves, are smart, but has

a great deal of negative energy. These are the organizational naysayers who view

13

themselves as mavericks, but are not team players and do not move in a positive

direction. They like to maintain the status-quo (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

• Conformist follower. These followers are sometimes known as yes-people. They

have a great deal of positive energy, but look to the leader for direction, vision and

thinking. They see themselves as doers, but are not innovative and see the leader as

always right regardless of possible negative moral consequences (Kelley, 1992, 2008)

• Courageous follower. The courageous follower (Chaleff, 2003) for the purpose

of this study is synonymous with the exemplary follower (Kelley, 1992, 2008). These

followers think for themselves, have a great deal of positive energy, but question or

challenge a leader’s decision or vision, especially if there are moral or ethical problems,

but will always provide an innovative way to accomplish the project or improve upon a

process a decision. This follower will support and sustain the leader if they buy-in to that

leader’s vision and decisions and serve as an organizational moral example. This follower

will also leave the organization if that organization’s culture violates that follower’s sense

of values, morals and ethics (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992).

• Courageous follower attributes. These attributes developed as part of the 56

item The Follower Profile (TFP) instrument (Dixon, 2003) based on a non empirical

survey developed by Chaleff, 2003) are: courage to serve, courage to challenge, courage

to assume responsibility, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave.

• Customer-contact employee. An employee in the service industry who has direct

personal contact with a customer (Aggarwal & Gupta, 2005; Gremler & Brown, 1996;

Sergeant & Frenkell, 2000).

14

• Exemplary or star follower. These followers can think for themselves, are

smart, and have a great deal of positive energy. They will question or challenge the

leader, his or her vision and values if they think the organization is heading in the wrong

direction or in the organization or leader is engaged in activities that are in violation of

the organization’s stated values or the follower’s personal values or both. However, this

follower will always provide constructive feedback on innovative solutions to move the

organization forward or how the leader and organization can best live up to the values.

These followers are team players and will support the team so long as the team is moving

in a positive direction (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

• Follower. For the purpose of the study a follower is an organizational or group

member who interacts and reports to or accepts the authority of another group/

organizational member who is designated as a leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kellerman, 2008;

Kelley, 1992, 2008).

• Followership. For the purpose of the study, followership is the affective,

cognitive and metacognitive processes followers use in terms of style and behavioral

attributes to interact with and/or influence the designated leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley,

2008; Lord, 2008; Lord & Emrich, 2001).

• Implicit leadership theory. A cognitive and meta-cognitive approach in

describing follower perceptions of leadership style of their leaders based upon the

leader’s behavior towards them and the leadership style based upon behaviors manifested

by the leaders as a result of their perception of how leaders should interact with their

followers (Lord & Emrich, 2001).

15

• Job satisfaction. How employees feel about their jobs and the various aspects of

their jobs (Spector, 1997).

• Passive follower. These followers are viewed as not being able to think for

themselves and look to their leaders to motivate and direct them. They are content to

follow the direction, decisions and vision of the leader regardless where that direction

takes them (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

• Pragmatic follower. These followers are smart and can think for themselves, but

are always measuring the direction of the winds of the organizational political climate

before they will take a stand. Their focus is always on what is in it for them or what

decision will be for their best benefit (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

Assumptions and Limitations

Assumptions

The study has the following assumptions: (a) the studied organizations will

authorize the study to be conducted at the selected locations, (b) the data collection will

be based on group administration of the selected instruments, (c) the author will obtain

the willing cooperation of a stratified random sample of sufficient statistical power to

provide statistically measurable results, (d) the organizational climate and culture at each

location will be similar so as to not cause significantly changes in customer-contact

employee perceptions of job satisfaction, (e) the demonstrated statistical reliability and

validity of The Followership Survey, TFP and JSS in previous studies will remain

constant and will replicate the same statistical reliability and validity in this study, and (f)

16

normal distribution of the sample population of hotel customer-contact employees cannot

be assumed.

Limitations

The limitations to the study include sample size, selection of respondents,

demonstrated validity of the data instruments, and threats to internal validity including

possible selection-maturation interaction and selection (Ohlund & Yu, 1999) due to the

respondents for the followership and employee satisfaction instruments will come from

the same work areas. Additionally, the cultural backgrounds of customer-contact

employees who may be foreign nationals may also have an effect on their response to the

questionnaire based on their knowledge and understanding of the English language.

These cultural influences are deliberately not being considered as control variables even

though they may have an influence on the dependent variables, as some foreign born

respondents may feel reluctant to identify their ethnicity because of a concern for privacy

and their legal immigration status. Other limitations include the study may not be

generalized to other populations because the focus is solely on the perceptions of hotel


Additionally, as there is not widespread use of the instruments involved in this

study (instrument validity and reliability notwithstanding), like the Pratt (2004) study, the

risk of hidden tautologies in the tested hypotheses may lead to meaningless correlational

analysis due to the ambiguity and complexity of the variables being tested. The self-

reporting aspects of The Followership Questionnaire and The Follower Profile may lead

to respondents answering questions in a way where they perceive that they are in a more

favorable light causing possible over reporting in certain categories. Further, as the data

17

will be gathered at one session at each location versus data being gathered over time in a

longitudinal study, the stability of the observed empirical relationships cannot be firmly

concluded.

Nature of the Study

The following is a synopsis of the nature of the study that provides a depiction of

the study’s concept and research design. In order to replicate procedures obtained in

multiple studies that examine identical variables and similar statistical tools, the research

design of this study is a hybrid of the Colangelo (2003), Ricketson (2008) and Dixon

(2003) studies. The Colangelo (2000) study examined followership style as compared to

leadership style as opposed to employee job satisfaction. While the Ricketson, (2008) and

Dixon, (2003) studiers examined courageous follower attributes and leadership level as

opposed to employee job satisfaction. Job satisfaction and courageous follower attributes

will be substituted as the dependent variables and followership style will serve as the

independent variable. A variant of The Followership Questionnaire used in the Colangelo

(2000) study and a variant of The Follower Profile from the Deckert (2007) study will be

used in this research study in order to reduce bias and provide clarity and understanding

for the instrument respondents. Details of the methodology and instrument characteristics

will be provided in greater detail in chapter 3.

In the first phase of the study, the independent variables of exemplary

followership, pragmatic followership, alienated followership, conformist followership

and passive followership (Kelley, 1992) as measured by The Followership Questionnaire

(TFQ) will be compared with the dependent variables of five followership behaviors: (a)

18

courage to assume responsibility, (b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (4)

courage to participate in transformation, and (e) courage to leave as measured by The

Follower Profile (TFP; Dixon, 2003) to determine the population distribution using the

Kruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric version of the ANOVA and the results of the

analysis of the data.

In the second phase of the study the independent variables of exemplary

followership, pragmatic followership, alienated followership, conformist followership

and passive followership (Kelley, 1992) as measured by The Followership Questionnaire

(TFQ) will be compared with ten dependent variables of job satisfaction as measured by

the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) to determine any correlations and

predictability using a Kruskal-Wallis test, Pearson correlation test, linear regression, and

the results of the analysis of the data.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 will be the literature review detailing the definition and concept of

followership, followership styles and associated behaviors will be compared and

contrasted as well as an evaluation of followership at the individual, group and

organizational levels, an evaluation of the similarities and differences between the TLM

and, servant leadership with a comparison and contrasting of the leader-followers

interactions peculiar to each leadership style. Job satisfaction will be analyzed based on

the influence of leadership and followership at the individual, group and organizational

levels as well as the various methods job satisfaction is quantitatively measured.

19

Chapter 3 will detail the methodology used in the study including the research

design, sample, the setting of the study, instrumentation and measures using the, TFQ

(Kelley, 1992), TFP (Dixon, 2003) and JSS (Spector, 1997), data analysis, validity, and

reliability of the TFQ, TFP, and JSS and ethical considerations of the study. Chapter 4

will detail the results obtained in the research and chapter 5 will provide a discussion of

the conclusions reached through the analysis of the data, implications for future research

and recommendations for practice.

20

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

On playgrounds and soccer fields and other places around the world where child

play, the focus is on the leader: The captain of the team, the class president, the

homecoming queen. In the Steven Spielberg film, Saving Private Ryan, Tom Hanks

portrays an American Army Captain of Infantry leading a squad of men to find Private

Ryan, a member of the 101s Airborne Division, a sole surviving son and bring him back

home. Children as they jump rope, chant “Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief,

Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief” outlining a path from riches to jail on one hand and

success and status on the other hand. Jack Bauer, of “24” fame, Indiana Jones on his

multiple adventures, and John Wayne, all conjure up visions of the great hero-leader, who

has come to save the day.

But children never focus on being a poor man, a beggar man, a thief or a legal

assistant, medical orderly or a lone Native-American warrior who is the last to catch the

late watch. Like children, adults in western society focus not on those that follow, but on

those that lead. Kelley (1992) is widely viewed as the seminal author on the concept of

followership. Kelley maintains that the great hero leader, a concept advanced by Carlyle

(as cited by Kelley, 1992), in which the leader is the source of all wisdom, knowledge,

power, and authority is a myth. A myth perpetuated by management schools, education

institutions, and a wide array of scholars and practitioners. Kelley argues that followers

are truly the engine of the organization and leaders use influence to get the followers to

perform in the manner they decide. The power ascribed to these leaders is what was given

to them by the followers, not the other way around. For example, in the recent crash

21

landing of US Airways Flight 1549, Captain Chesley W. Sullenberger used his skill and

training to bring the Airbus down safely on the Hudson River, but it was the flight crew

(followers) who got the passengers out of the aircraft safely and kept them calm until

help arrived. In essence, it was followers who completed what Captain Sullenberger had

started.

The literature review for this study will examine the premises of followership

style and courageous follower attributes and their influence on hotel customer-contact

employee job satisfaction by (a) analyzing and synthesizing definitions of followership;

(b) evaluating, comparing, and contrasting followership interactions and associated

behaviors at the individual, group and organizational levels; (c) evaluating, comparing

and contrasting the influences and interactions of followership styles at the individual,

group and organizational levels; (d) comparing and contrasting the similarities and

differences of the Transformational Leadership Model (TLM), servant leadership and

their influence on followers; (e) evaluating the various methods of how job satisfaction is

measured; (f) evaluating the definitions of job satisfaction; and (g) analyzing the effects

of leadership and followership styles on employee job satisfaction at the individual,

group and organizational levels.

Overview of Leadership Versus Followership-Which is More Important?

Leadership theories have used aspects of power and authority as assumptions in

defining the relationships between the leader and the follower. For example, the

Transformational Leadership Model (TLM) examines the relationship between the leader

and follower based on upon the leader’s influence and level of power sharing (Bass &

22

Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006) .The situational leadership

theory asserts that the relationship between the leader and the follower is determined by

the level of the follower’s job experience or maturity (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) while

the contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967) is focused on the relationship of the leader and

follower based upon either the leader’s focus on task accomplishment or the relationship

between the leader and the follower. In the servant leadership concept, defined as leaders

willingly serve as servants to their followers, where the leader places follower interests,

personal development, and empowerment foremost in the effort to achieve a shared

vision (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1998; Spears & Lawrence, 2002; Laub, 1999, as cited by

Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

In terms of the interactions between leaders and followers, Northouse argued that

the situational leadership theory (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982) and the contingency theory

of leadership (Fiedler, 1967) are leadership models that predict how leaders will behave

based upon certain designated situations. These models have dominated leadership and

management theory and have determined how organization lead and treat their followers.

However, Northouse further asserted that organizations correctly focus more on

behavioral based approaches to leadership and leadership development. Servant

leadership and the transformational leadership model meet that criteria as these two

leadership models focus more on leader behavior to influence and motivate followers

versus a set formula of leadership actions based on certain situations (Northouse, 2007).

In all cases, the thrust of the cited leadership theories is based on the

organizational effects from the standpoint of the leader, while the focus on the follower is

secondary, but it can be argued that the Transformational Leadership Model and the

23

servant-leadership concept moves closer to follower focus that other leadership theories

because of the emphasis on power-sharing (Bass & Bass, 2008; Laub, 1999; Miller, 2007;

and Northouse, 2007). The one noted difference between the cited examples is the leader-

member exchange where the focus is on the dyadic relationship between the leader and

follower where both parties have the power to influence each other (Graen & Uhl-Bien,

1995; Liden, Sparrowe & Wayne as cited by Gertsner & Day, 1997; Liden, Erodgan,

Wayne & Sparrowe, 2006).

Followership as a Primary Focus

The nature of followership then is not secondary but should be a primary focus.

Because of power differential between leaders and followers and levels of responsibility

leaders have in organizations, much organizational research is focused through the lens of

leadership (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992). Brookfield, (1995) in his discussion on critical

reflection for teachers, argues that teachers have a leadership role in their classrooms,

where they are to facilitate student learning through the lenses of the teacher’s

autobiographical experiences, the student perspective, peer viewpoints, and theoretical

literature. Critical reflection occurs through the assimilation of these various perspectives

while sharing power in the classroom with the student. Brookfield further argued that true

learning and enhanced student performance occurs when a teacher truly embraces the

student’s viewpoints and willingly shares classroom power. The viewpoint of the student

to determine if student learning occurs is captured with the Critical Incident

Questionnaire (CIQ; Brookfield, 1995). In this regard, the student is the follower and by

extension in organizations outside of the classroom, this concept could provide a new

24

means of organizational relationship avenues to enhance organizational performance

where the focus is more on the follower than that of the leader (Densten & Gray, 2001;

Reynolds, 1999).

Kelley argued that after over 10,000 studies and 2500 years of research,

humankind has still failed to develop the perfect leader. The major religions have

demonstrated that followers are the true wielders of power and influence. The focus on

leaders has relegated followers to either being apprentice leaders or sheep-like

submissive subordinates, but the concept of leadership and followership actually exist

side by side. Citing the example of Cincinnatus, a Roman farmer and general who in 458

B.C. was recalled to active duty to save Rome, and rather than accept the title of Leader

of the Empire after the battle was won, went back to his farm, content to being a common

citizen. Kelley further argued the democratic experiment that became the United States of

America demonstrated the power of the common citizen, the follower (Kelley, 1992,

2008).

If there is a problem facing the nation, Kelley asserted, it is because there is a

problem of followership, not leadership. In essence, we are responsible for hiring those

who lead us. In our organizations, most people spend 70-90% of their time following and

10-30% leading since all organizational members are followers regardless of their level in

the organization. Kelley argued that followership is a process consisting of seven paths

that are reflective of self-expression and reflection and one that is shaped by relationships

with others. These paths are aligned with five distinct followership styles (Kelley, 1992).

25

Leadership, Followership and Employee Job Satisfaction

Several studies have demonstrated that the transformational leadership style is the

most successful in motivating customer-contact employees to deliver quality customer

service in hospitals (Jabnoun & Al Rasasi, 2005), in the retail industry (Gerhardt, 2006),

and in the banking and retail food industry (Emery & Barker, 2007). While other

follower-focused research has demonstrated that employee job satisfaction is crucial in

providing quality customer service (Hallowell, Schlesinger & Zormitsky, as cited by

Gerhardt, 2006; Heskett, Sasser & Schlesinger, 1997; Parasuraman, Zeithaml & Berry,

1991). One follower based study examined follower motivation and job satisfaction

among secondary schoolteachers (Webb, 2007). A few research studies have examined

the influence of followership style and attributes on organizational performance and

organizational leader behavior (Bell, 2007; Deckert, 2007; Pitron, 2008). Others have

focused on the influence of followership style and attributes on team development and or

operationalized instruments to measure followership styles and attributes (Dixon, 2003;

McSkimming, 2006). While some research studies have focused on the relationship

between leader behavior and followership style (Bearden, 2008; Beckerleg, 2002;

Colangelo, 2000; Kilburn, 2007; Vrba, 2008). However, there are few if any studies that

examine how followership style and attributes impact customer-contact employee job

satisfaction in the hotel industry.

Chaleff (2003) takes the concept of followership styles even deeper by the

development of six specific followership behavioral attributes that are aligned with the

dynamics of the leader-follower relationship. Both Chaleff and Kelley focus on the role

26

of the influence of followers on organizations through the lens of followership as the

primary versus secondary focus (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992).

Analyzing and Synthesizing Definitions of Followership

Kelley (1992) is viewed as the seminal author of followership. His work outlines

seven paths to followership and five styles of followership that will be covered shortly. In

an earlier work, Kelley (1988) argued that followers and leaders are merely roles that

people within organizations play and while these roles dominate the lives of people, only

the leadership aspect dominates the thinking, while followers and followership is

relegated into the background. Kelley asserted that an effective follower is less of a

subordinate, who waits for guidance and orders to be obeyed without question and more

of a team member and trusted advisor who is self-managed, committed to the

organization, and a principle and purpose separate from themselves, are competent and

self-improving, while applying that competence for maximum organizational effect and

have moral courage, credibility and integrity. He acknowledged that not all leaders want

these types of effective followers and would rather have passive followers who do as they

are told or those who enthusiastically support their decisions or agendas without question

(Kelley, 1988).

Kelley (2008) argued that the concept of followers being inferior, passive beings

who like a blank slate, are in dire need of the leader’s protection, direction, and

motivation in order to be effective and contribute to the organization is outdated and not

relevant to today’s organizational realities. Maroosis (2008) described followership as a

discipline, where the follower maintains a state of readiness to act and to learn by giving

27

and receiving feedback, where the leader is more like a teacher and the follower is the

learner. However, depending on the situation, the follower may become the teacher, and

the leader becomes the student. Maroosis introduced the moral component to the leader

and follower relationship where both are responsible for moral actions and thinking as

well as being partners in organizational change and being part of a transformative process

(Maroosis, 2008).

In contrast, Rost viewed followership as an irrelevant, dysfunctional, and

destructive concept in the postindustrial world. He simply defined followers as people

who follow and followership is a process that is used to follow. He contends that this

process is separate and distinct from the process leaders use to lead. He asserts that

collaborative leadership is not followership and that the use of the term follower is an

anathema to many leaders who by training, education, and culture have a very negative

perception of a follower. For many of them, an effective follower is one who does what

they are told, is loyal to the leadership, and enthusiastically carries out their instructions.

In order for the concept of followers and followership to be accepted, he asserts the terms

must be changed in order to gain positive acceptance, as many people still see followers

and leaders and followership and leadership as separate and distinct entities with no

connection and no real relevance to each other, other than their separate and distinct

organizational roles (Rost, 2008).

Atchison (2004) viewed followership and followers on the basis on what the

leader can bring to them with the followers being dependent upon the leader for

inspiration, recognition of achievements, direction, and character that inspires trust. This

view differs from that of Rost who sees no connection and Kelley who views the leader-

28

follower relationship as almost symbiotic. Kellerman (2008) argued that there is a global

awakening for followers who realize that power is not vested in the few, but is available

to the many. This does not mean that the world is descending into mob rule, but that “The

Great Man” theory of leadership is dead and that in order for societies or organizations to

be successful and thriving, leaders must be cognizant of the wants, needs and concerns of

those they lead as well as be willing to share power in terms of empowering their

followers to be co-captains of their own destiny. Chaleff (2003) takes the concept of

follower empowerment even further and asserted that if followers are to be empowered,

they must understand the power that is available to them and assume responsibility for

not only their roles, but that of their leaders.

In the 1975 edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary a follower is defined as

“(a) one in the service or another; (b) one that follows the opinions or teachings of

another (and followership is defined as) the capacity or willingness to follow a leader’ (p.

446, G & C, Merriam and Company, 1975). From these definitions it can be seen that

followers are more than just those who follow or serve as subordinates in an organization.

Followers have a key role in both society and organizations and wield a measure of

influence that has an effect on the direction of a group, organization or even a society

(Atkinson, 2004; Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 1992, 2008; Kellerman; 2008; Maroosis, 2008).

This concept leads to a working definition of a follower who is an organizational or

group member who interacts and reports to or accepts the authority of another

group/organizational member who is designated as a leader (Chaleff, 2003; Kellerman,

2008; Kelley, 1992, 2008). Followership, therefore is defined as the affective, cognitive,

29

and metacognitive processes followers use in terms of style and behavioral attributes to

interact with and/or influence the designated leader (Chaleff, 2003, Kelley, 1992, 2008,

Lord, 2008; Lord & Emrich, 2001).

Paths to Followership

Followership has been defined as the affective, cognitive and metacognitive

processes followers use in terms of style and attributes to interact with the designated

leader. Burns (1978) supports this definition by arguing that followership is activated by

a perceived want or need of the follower, who is motivated to pursue that want or need by

his or her interaction with an individual who can fulfill it. That want or need may be

power, influence, recognition, a sense of belonging, a set of values or principles, temporal

needs, wants, or spiritual fulfillment. He further asserts that the follower and leader

interaction is best defined as a relationship based upon mutuality where future motives

replace those of the present that may be already fulfilled or blocked by current

circumstances. This sense of mutuality between the leader and follower leads to a greater

sense of follower empowerment and organizational effectiveness (Bass, Avolio, Jung &

Benson, 1994; Jablin, 1980; Miller, 2007; Nahabetian, as cited by Bass & Bass, 2008;

Pelz, as cited by Bass & Bass, 2008; Ronken & Lawrence, as cited by Bass & Bass,

2008).

Both Burns (1978) and Bass and Bass (2008) have highlighted the affective,

cognitive and meta-cognitive actions that motivate individuals to become followers.

These motivations are viewed as being framed through the lenses of self-expression,

personal goals, relationships, and self-transformation (Kelley, 1992). Kelley asserted that

the lens of self-expression is used by individuals who walk the loyalist or lifeway paths to

30

followership. The dreamer and apprentice paths are used by those whose paths to

followership are shaped by personal goals. Those individuals whose paths to followership

are based on relationships use the comrade or mentee paths. Those that seek to transform

themselves follow the disciple path to followership. Kelley further argued that these

individual motivations fly in the face of conventionally held paradigms that maintain that

people follow because of a leader’s motivation or vision. Figure 1 demonstrates how

these seven paths to followership and the lenses of perception are characterized:

Figure 1. Seven Paths to Followership

31

Kelley asserted some people are motivated to contribute their skills and abilities

toward achieving organizational goals, are for the most part comfortable with their

accomplishments, talents and current lifestyle. These individuals generally view

followership through the lens of expressing oneself. One path is that of the loyalist. This

is based on a deep emotional commitment to another where the follower is in a position

of trust and confidence, where there is a bond of integrity and a one-to-one relationship.

The other path is that if the lifeway, where the individual chooses this path out of

personal preference. Kelley argued that this follower’s motivation is simply to serve

others and the primary interest is for another versus self. This may manifest itself as

others being content to be in the background supporting and encouraging others on their

road to success. They are happy to be where they are and they need no more. Kelley

referred to this metacognitive concept as enoughness (Kelley, 1992).

The next lens is that of personal relationships. Kelley argued that some

individuals treasure interpersonal relationships more than the pursuit of goals and dreams.

The strength and bond of friendships and group interaction have more personal meaning,

provide more motivation, and provide more intrinsic rewards than any extrinsic ones.

One path is that of the comrade. The bonds between comrades are forged by life changing

circumstances. Examples include students in a rigorous doctoral program, those engaged

in life threatening occupations such as law enforcement, firefighting and the military, or

those who are working together for a good cause such as a medical team or a sports team

at a championship game. Kelley explained that the affective, metacognitive and cognitive

processes that evolve around comradeship are based on the intimacy associated with

belonging. In this case, it is not the leader where most of the interaction occurs, it is

32

relationships and interactions between the followers themselves. In contrast, Kelley

asserted that the mentee has a developmental and emotional one on one relationship with

the leader. The follower in this instance surrenders himself or herself to the influence of

the leader. The developmental aspect is not that of skills, but of personal maturation and

the mentor then can shape and direct the skills of the mentee to the achievement of

personal satisfaction and growth (Kelley, 1992).

The next lens, asserted Kelley, is one that is shaped by personal goals. These

individuals have a sense of drive to achieve a life’s goal. This motivates them to seek

paths of followership that serve as a vehicle to achieve these goals. One path is that of the

apprentice. Unlike the mentee where the focus is relationships and personal maturation,

the apprentice seeks to develop and improve skills that will assist him or her in

succeeding in the chosen profession. This focus includes learning from a skilled leader

who will assist the apprentice to succeed in his or her learning. In the case of the military

as an example, the follower is an apprentice leader, learning to follow in order to learn

how to lead, thus satisfactory service at each lower level leads to positive consideration

for elevation to the next level. The other path is that of the dreamer. Unlike the

apprentice, the dreamer is focused solely on the dream, with the leader taking a secondary

role or no role at all. The only guiding force for the dreamer, according to Kelley is the

achievement of the dream itself. Kelley refers to this affective process as internalization.

If the goals of the dreamer and organization coincide, then there is a good fit. If the goals

do not coincide, then there is conflict and in many cases for the follower, disappointment

and a change of careers to one that coincides with the dream (Kelley, 1992).

33

The final lens is that of self-transformation and the path of discipleship, where

unlike the mentor to mentee relationship, the teacher passes on a body of knowledge to a

group of students and the maturation is not personal or emotional, but intellectual instead.

Discipleship follows the metacognitive process of identification. The disciple want to be

part of something larger than themselves and give up who they are to become part of

something better and more important that their individual selves. At the organizational

level, disciples serve as valuable transporters of organizational knowledge and culture

and can serve as missionaries to others carrying forth messages of organizational change

from the leadership (Kelley, 1992).

Followership Interactions, Attributes, and Styles

Much has been said, written and researched about leadership styles, attributes and

the interactions leaders have with their followers, but, strictly through the lens of the

leader’s perspective. For example, in the situational leadership model (SLM; Hersey &

Blanchard, 1982) where the influence of the leader is important in follower development

in accomplishing designated tasks, the premise behind the SLM is that leadership

behavior and style can be predicted based upon the developmental or readiness level of

the follower and the difficulty of the task to be performed. In another example, the

contingency theory (Fiedler, 1969) like the SLM predicted leadership style based on

situations and like the SLM, there is a variable that includes task structure. However,

unlike the SLM, the contingency theory does not examine the developmental level and

willingness of the follower to complete the task. The contingency theory includes the

variable of the position power of the leader and the relationship the leader has with the

34

follower. The position is based on the official and legal authority the leader has to mete

out rewards and punishments to the followers. Leader-follower or leader-member

relations (LMR) are the attitude and feelings that exists between the leader and the

follower(s) (Fiedler, 1969).

There is little to no focus on the attitudes, perceptions or effective/ineffective

followership style from these examples. The key to understanding the effect followers

have on leaders and organizations is to first examine the nature of follower-leader

interactions and secondly examine positive and negative behavioral attributes of

followers (Kelley, 1992; Lord, 2008).

Follower-Leader-Interactions

Chaleff asserted that followers operate on four different levels in terms of their

interactions within organizations. Chaleff argued that on the first level, the follower is a

dedicated “other focused” servant serving internal and external organizational

stakeholders. On the second level, the follower juggles the ability to simultaneously serve

themselves, organizational leaders, internal, and external stakeholders with no apparent

conflict of interests. On the third level, followers turn towards being completely self-

serving, ignoring the needs of organizational stakeholders, while serving themselves and

organizational leaders. Chaleff argued that at this level, the seeds of organizational failure

are planted. At the fourth level self-serving behavior of the follower can be described as

unethical and/or immoral behavior. It is at this level the follower only serves the leader

while permitting that leader to engage in unethical and/or immoral behavior that harms

the organization and its stakeholders, while at the same time engaging in the same

behavior themselves (Chaleff, 2003).

35

With these levels of follower organizational interaction as a backdrop, Kellerman

(2008) posited why people follow. Kellerman (2008), citing Freud from his book Moses

and Monotheism, reported that Freud asserted people follow for four reasons. The first

reason is that people have a strong need for authority that, secondly, is derived from our

earliest relationship with a strong dominant male figure, usually the father. Third, people

follow because of the connection between one’s need for authority and the need for

religion deriving from our first submissive relationship to parents. Finally, people follow

because of the nature of power relationships where there is envy and admiration on one

hand and loathing and fear on the other (Kellerman, 2008).

In contrast, Kellerman argued that people follow because of human desires such

the need to belong, having a sense of togetherness, being loved and having a sense of

safety and community. She asserted since humans are social creatures, the need for group

belonging is strong, hence the desire to follow other followers and playing the part of the

follower meets at least some of those needs and it is in one’s best interest to do so. In

essence, “followers follow not only because it is in their interest to conform to their

leaders, but also it is in their interests to conform to their fellow followers… [by

providing]…crucial reference points” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 56).

Kellerman’s argument suggests that the nature of followership is behavioral based

and dependent on the social, emotional and temporal needs of the follower (Kellerman,

2008). In contrast, Chaleff agreed that the nature of followership is behavioral, but he

argues that unlike Freud, who asserts that in a secular way, human beings are seeking

some type of higher authority to obey and follow, human beings are socialized from early

childhood to conform to obey and be compliant and submissive. In some cases,

36

nonconformity to this rigid societal framework can bring punishment or being ostracized.

Here, the follower-leader relationship is like that of parent to child, where the follower is

dependent and who cannot relate to the leader on an equal footing. He maintained it is

natural for human beings to seek to be courageous followers who retain their own sense

of being, the right to be wrong and the right to retain their own interpretations of their

own experiences and perceptions (Chaleff, 2003).

Kelley supported this premise in his argument that leadership can only take

followers so far. He maintained that people have power that is inherently theirs to

improve themselves, maximize their potential and build upon the talents and abilities that

are also inherently theirs. In essence, people naturally follow, to learn, grow, strengthen

and build up themselves, their organizations and the people around them and are eager to

engage in those behaviors to bring those things to pass, provided they can break free of

the socialization processes that have trapped them (Kelley, 1992).

Townsend and Gebhardt in their examination of leadership, teamship and

followership, argued that the nature of the relationships between leaders, teams and

followership indicate that leadership is not a position, but a behavior. By extension,

followership, like leadership is a behavior versus being a position. This view of

followership suggested affective and cognitive components to followership where the

follower establishes a framework for their own understanding of events and their social

world (Townsend and Gebhardt, 2003). This process or sensemaking often dictates how

followers perceive the leadership style displayed by their leaders and determines how

they will react to those perceptions (Lord, 2008). The implicit leadership theory (Lord &

Emrich, 2001), strengthened this assertion by arguing that leaders display the leadership

37

style that they do, because, they perceive that the behaviors associated with that style are

proper, effective and in keeping with the perceptions of the position power they wield.

However, followers engage in metacognitive processes and develop constructs of

perceived leadership style, based upon their observations of the behaviors displayed by

their leader or leaders (Lord & Emrich, 2001).

In essence, leadership behavior is a function of the environment that includes a

social relationship and perception of the leader with the follower, the task involved, the

context of the nature of the task, the feedback provided from the task accomplishment,

and the follower. The leader can influence organizational learning by having situational

awareness of the factors that align organizational performance with social and safety

needs of the followers. This in turn, requires the leader to know and understand his or her

followers in order to obtain that awareness (Chaleff, 2003; Kelley, 2008; Lord & Emrich,

2001; Townsend & Gebhardt, 2003).

Lord and Emrich further argued that followers gain their perception of their

leaders through observation of the leader’s behavior and linking that observation to their

mental definition of the leader’s style or type. The leader on the other hand, behaves in a

certain fashion based upon his or her perception of their personal implicit leadership

theory. The authors posited that cognitive and metacognitive processes of both leader and

follower are not separate but linked together. These cognitive and metacognitive

processes then drive both the leader in influencing the followers and the followers in

either completing or not completing the tasks assigned to them by the leader (Lord &

Emrich, 2001). When these processes are not synchronized, the result is the leader loses

38

influence and control of the organization and the followers pursue goals that may not be

in the interest of the organization, leading to disastrous results (Kelley, 1988).

Dvir and Shamir (2003) echoed Lord and Emrich’s argument and asserted that

leaders that demonstrate charismatic leadership must also demonstrate value congruence

with their followers in order for them to be effective and that effective leadership is

dependent upon the match between a leader’s identity, values, and the cognitive

structures erected by the followers (Lord, Brown & Freiberg, 1999; Shamir & Howell, as

cited by Dvir & Shamir, 2003).

In an examination of transformational leadership, and follower personality,

Schyns and Felfe (2006), argued that on the theoretical level, followers perceiving their

leaders as transformational tend to share those same characteristics. Their assumptions

are based on the evidence from three separate areas of research. The first is leader

prototypicality is defined as the leader’s displays attributes defining the group and

represents the identity of the group (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg , de Cremer &

Hogg, as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). This concept was demonstrated by the work of

Hains, Hogg and Duck (as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006) and van Knippenberg, Lossie

and Wilke (as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006) who found when group membership is

important, followers perceive the leader as more effective and can exert more influence

on followers than leaders who do not share the same group membership. The second is

contagion where followers who have similar personalities as the leader are more likely to

share the same perception of the leader than those who do not (Meindl, 1993; Schneider,

as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). The last concept is that of assumed similarity where

followers who tend to share certain leadership characteristics tend to see those same

39

characteristics within their own leaders (Cronbach, 1955; Watson, Hubbard & Wise, as

cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006).

The premises advocated by Schyn and Felfe (2006) were tested in a mixed

methods study by Ehrhart and Klein (2001). In this study of 267 college students, the

authors examined eight follower characteristics “achievement, risk-taking, self-esteem,

need for structure, intrinsic work value, and extrinsic work value, interpersonal; relations

work value, security, work value and participation work value…”(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001,

p. 157) and three leadership styles “charismatic, relationship-oriented and task-oriented”

(Ehrhart & Klein, 2001, p. 157).

The authors found that followers that were focused on high achievement had

positive correlations with charismatic and task oriented leaders, but negative correlations

with relationship oriented leaders. Followers that exhibited risk taking characteristics

showed a positive correlation with charismatic leaders, but negative correlations with

relationship and task oriented leaders. Followers that described themselves as having high

self-esteem had positive correlations with charismatic and task-oriented leaders, but

negative correlations with relationship oriented leaders. Followers who indicated a need

structure showed negative correlations with charismatic and relationship oriented leaders

and a positive correlation with task-oriented leaders. Followers who valued intrinsic work

values such as work challenges; taking the initiative and taking responsibility showed

positive correlations with charismatic and task-oriented leaders. No hypothesis was made

concerning the relationship-oriented leadership style (Ehrhart & Klein, 2001).

Ehrhart and Klein found that followers who valued extrinsic work values such as

work hours, compensation, and fringe benefits showed a positive correlation with task-

40

oriented leaders. There were no hypotheses tested with charismatic and relationship-

oriented leadership styles. Followers who valued the quality of interpersonal work

relationships showed positive correlations relationship and task-oriented leaders. There

was no hypothesis tested with the charismatic leadership style. Followers that valued job

stability and security had positive correlations with relationship and task-oriented leaders.

Finally, followers who displayed a high participation work value exhibiting influence,

sharing decision making, and working for the mutual benefit for the organization, showed

positive correlations with charismatic and relationship-oriented leaders, but there was no

hypothesis tested task-oriented leadership style (Ehrhart & Klein 2001).

The results of the Ehrhart and Klein (2001) study were validated by Dvir and

Shamir (2003) whose longitudinal field study of 90 non-commissioned officers and 729

recruits of the Israeli Defense Force revealed that the follower developmental constructs

motivation, empowerment, and morality resulted in a change in leader behavior based

upon follower shared perceptions of transformational leader attributes. However, in

some cases the relationship became negative if leaders perceived that the followers who

were outside of the direct supervision were shown to be independent, innovative and

critical and thus posed a threat to that leader’s leadership. This negative relationship

resulted in a suppression of transformational leader attributes, both in actions by the

leader, and perceptions by the indirect followers (Dvir & Shamir, 2003).

Lord argued that the influence followers have on organizations is seen in the

premises of the complexity theory where structures spontaneously arise because of the

interaction between units. In the interactions between followers and leaders, emergent

internal structures arise as followers build their own self-perceptions or develop

41

perceptions of others. These emergent internal structures given rise to multiple internal

and external emergent strictures outside of formally established organizational structures

that build upon existing informational networks and collective knowledge structures that

are informal, yet weld power of their own, outside of the formally established

organizational power structure (Carver & Scheier, 2002; Cilliers, 1998: Sparrowe &

Liden, as cited by Lord, 2008). This phenomenon can best be observed by the election of

a new Governor or President, who along with their new political appointees, have to cope

with, and deal with, the existing bureaucracy and the permanent civil servants who build

new networks or strengthen existing ones to maintain as much of the status quo as

possible.

Followership Attributes Not Associated with Followership Style

Effective Followers

The literature has shown that the interactions between followers and leaders are

not simple and are indeed complex and have far reaching consequences for organizations.

Lundin and Lancaster (1990) argued that leaders and organizations must establish an

environment and culture that embraces the concept of empowered followership. Lundin

and Lancaster asserted that in essence, helping organizational members to develop or

strengthen those follower attributes that will enhance their ability to develop their

abilities and make positive contributions to the organization. The authors further argued

that effective followers have four key attributes. The first is integrity. While this is both

an individual and organizational value, integrity for the follower, according to the

authors, is both a demonstration of loyalty and acting according to one’s beliefs. The

42

second attribute is own the territory, meaning gaining and building an understanding of

the organization and the contributions they make to the operational and strategic goals of

the organization. The third is that of versatility. This means that the follower must

demonstrate flexibility in both upgrading and modifying their skills to meet

organizational needs and being adaptable in addressing the waves of change they may

face. The final attribute is that of self-employment. This means that the follower must

assume personal responsibility for their personal development, careers, and actions,

leaving them in a position to be effective followers while providing viable openings for

other career options (Lundin & Lancaster, 1990).

Followership Attributes as a Group

Kellerman (2008) identified followership attributes that are more group

descriptors than that of an individual group member. However, these descriptors may

apply to one individual who bands together with other like minded people. One example

is this activist follower type.

Activists

Using the backdrop of the sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests in the

Boston area and the subsequent cover-up by Church authorities, Kellerman described the

rise of the group called the Voice of the Faithful to illustrate her point. She asserts that

activists are followers who are determined to be change agents. Activists demonstrate as

a group they care deeply about their leaders, in the sense they are solidly behind them or

they want them to go. Activists are engaged, have a great deal of energy, and are

extremely passionate. They are extremely involved in their cause, people and attendant

43

processes and will work very hard to support and sustain their leaders or to take action to

oust them (Kellerman, 2008).

Diehards

The next follower group, Kellerman describes, is diehards. Using the backdrop of

Operation Anaconda, a military combat operation that occurred early in the war in

Afghanistan, Kellerman examines the hardened Al Qaeda fighters and the United States

military, specifically senior and junior leaders within the 10th Mountain Division of the

United States Army. Diehard followers are described as those who are willing to die if

necessary for a cause or an individual idea or even both. Diehards demonstrate deep

devotion to their leaders or like activists will work to remove them. However, unlike

activists, diehards will go to extremes using any means necessary to remove those

leaders, if required. These followers are defined by the level of dedication, their

willingness to sacrifice their all, up to and including their own lives to the idea or cause.

Being a diehard, according to Kellerman is all consuming, determining who you are and

what you do (Kellerman, 2008).

Participants

Another follower group, Kellerman describes is the participants. The author used

the backdrop of the legal difficulties faced by the drug manufacturer Merck over the drug

Vioxx to illustrate this concept. Participants are described by Kellerman as being

engaged, but not to the same extent as an activist or diehard. It is clear that participants

either clearly favor their organization, cause, or leader or they do not. However, they are

willing to make some effort, no matter how small, in order to have an impact, but not to

44

the same level of commitment as an activist or diehard, especially when it comes to

undermining or ousting a leader.

Bystanders

Finally, the last follower group is that of the bystander. Using Nazi Germany and

the atrocities of the Holocaust as a backdrop, Kellerman describes bystanders as those

followers who may observe what is occurring within their organizations or society, but

make a deliberate decision to not engage. They participate with their leaders or group in

the activity that constitutes the status quo, but the disengagement of the bystander, in

effect, is giving tacit approval to their activities and behaviors that are occurring

(Kellerman, 2008).

Negative Follower Attributes: The Dark Side of Followership

From Kellerman’s descriptors of the follower group attributes of the bystander,

participant, activist, and diehard, one can see that connection of follower-leader

interaction where the follower may choose to either ignore leader behaviors or activities

or embrace them in varying degrees of support and loyalty or oppose them in the same

varying degrees. Opposition may be in the form of subtle sabotage of the leader to

outright mutiny where the leader’s life may be in jeopardy in a bid to oust him or her by

the follower group Kellerman, 2008). The literature has provided some research and

theory on toxic leadership or destructive leadership styles and their attendant attributes.

However, the literature is largely silent on the negative side of individual follower

attributes, where a toxic leader may be upheld and enabled by the followers or efforts

taken by the followers to undermine or destroy the leader. The literature cited examples

of petty tyranny, abusive supervision, narcissistic leadership, autocratic leadership,

45

negative charisma and pseudo-transformational leadership have been described in terms

of behavioral attributes, organizational effects and influence on followers (Ashforth,

1994; Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Clements & Washbush, 1999; Conger, 1990; and

Schmidt, 2008). Other authors have looked at the specific behavioral aspects to what is

termed dark leadership

McIntosh and Rima assert that all leaders have dark sides. It is that lack of

acknowledgement of these dark attributes that ultimately lead to leader derailment. The

attributes of narcissism, negative charisma and the attendant effects of manipulation,

deception, arrogance, emotional illiteracy, mirroring, and lack of integrity (Clements &

Washbush, 1999, Sankar, 2003; and Leslie & Velsor, 1996) are all symptoms of the dark

leadership tendencies. The negative charisma, or narcissism, didn’t just flair into

existence in a leader; it was the result of some traumatic event that led to a hierarchal

need being met. The manifestations of the behaviors characterized by dark leader

attributes are the attempts of that individual to overcompensate for those unmet needs

through the repayment of existential debts. This repayment manifests itself as those dark

leader behaviors. The emotional explosion is one such manifestation of those behaviors

(McIntosh & Rima, 1997).

By extension, it would stand to reason that if there are dark leaders, there must be

dark followers. Kellerman (2008) alludes to this by her description of the negative

aspects of bystanders, participants, activists, or diehards through their own behavior

providing strong support for the actions and behaviors of the dark leaders. The Enron and

Salomon Brothers scandals, terrorist suicide bombers and the mass suicide of the

followers of Jim Jones in Guyana are such examples. The influence of these dark leaders

46

immediately impact organizations through the actions of that leader’s followers. The

actions of the followers of these dark leaders are known as dark followership (Howell &

Avolio, 1992; Raelin, 2003; Kellerman 2004). However, there is little research to support

the concept of dark followership since so much focus is on the leadership side of the

follower-leader interaction (Clements &Washbush, 1999).

However, authors such as Kellerman have provided some contributions to the

body of knowledge on the subject of bad followership. She argues that if a follower (a)

chooses to remain passive and uninvolved; (b) supports an unethical, immoral, abusive

and inefficient leader; or (c) opposes an ethical, moral and effective leader, then that

follower is engaged in bad followership (Kellerman, 2008).

Clements and Washbush go even further in describing six specific behavioral

attributes or more specifically behaviors associated with a dark follower type, drawing of

the work of Kets de Vries (as cited by Clements and Washbush, 1999).

The Controller

The first behavioral type is the controller. The controller sees the world in terms

of dominant and submissive relationships as a leader, the controller would be micro-

managing and autocratic, but as a follower, the controller would do anything ordered by

his or her superiors regardless of the consequences and would be ingratiating and

extremely deferential when dealing with individuals that are in higher authority. The

behavior of the controller is defined by their position in the organizational hierarchy. The

controller is unwilling to provide critical and objective feedback to the leader as they feel

that this is not their place or job to do so (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

47

The Histrionic

The authors described the second dysfunctional follower type as that of the

histrionic. The histrionic have a desperate need to draw attention to themselves regardless

of the costs. These followers overreact to external stimuli and allow the desires and

moods of others to define their behavior. Like controllers, they respond positively to

strong authority figures, are very impressionable, and demonstrate strong loyalty

particularly to charismatic or transformational leaders. The histrionic will not provide

critical and objective feedback to the leader because they may feel this may upset the

leader (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

The Passive-Aggressive Follower

The third dark follower type described by the authors is that of the passive-

aggressive follower. While outwardly this follower may appear to be compliant and

obedient, inwardly they are a seething cauldron of anger, resentment and pessimism.

Their outward behaviors make them difficult to confront, especially when they engage in

covert resistance and sabotage of the leader’s efforts. The passive aggressive follower

will not provide the leader any critical objective feedback, because that will not play into

their need to covertly resist (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

The Dependent Follower

The fourth dark follower type the authors described is that of the dependent

follower. Dependent followers are those individuals who have strong unmet dependency

needs. As a result they attach themselves onto those individuals who can meet those

needs, to include the need for constant direction. These followers may be willing to

sacrifice anything, to include reality; in order to have those needs met. The dependent

48

follower will intentionally place themselves in a dependent situation so that they can be

followers. These types of followers will be unwilling to provide their leaders with critical

feedback for fear of endangering their dependent status (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

The Masochistic Follower

The authors describe the fifth dark follower type as that of the masochistic

follower. This follower will intentionally place themselves in positions so that others can

take advantage of them, accept blame for outcomes and things for which they are not

responsible and view their hard luck as positive emotional reinforcement. Some may

view them as the classic martyrs. The masochistic follower will not provide objective and

critical feedback to the leader, as this may deprive them of positive feedback in the event

something goes wrong (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

The Machiavellian Follower

The final example cited by the authors is that of the Machiavellian follower

(Christie & Geis, as cited by Clements & Washbush, 1999). These followers are

dangerous to leaders and the organization as they tend to be sycophants who purposely

deprive the leader of critical feedback in order to enhance their own position, power and

organizational political standing, while setting up their current leader for failure and

removal. Like the other dark follower types, Machiavellian followers are unwilling to

provide the leader critical objective feedback, but unlike the other dark follower

attributes, these followers view any corrective action taken by the leader, as a means to

thwart their plans to set the leader up for failure and/or jeopardize their own quest for

power or enhanced organizational political position (Clements & Washbush, 1999).

49

Followership Styles and Associated Behavioral Attributes

Chaleff (2003) and Kelley (1992) have developed defined followership styles that

have identifiable behavioral attributes. In addition these behavioral attributes have been

operationalized as empirical constructs and used quantitative instruments.

As part of workshop activities, Chaleff developed a non-operationalized 20 item

self-reporting survey with a 6-point Likert scale that determined the extent the respondent

was a courageous follower by examining the extent the respondent exhibited loyal and

enthusiastic support to the leader and the extent the respondent challenged the leader

when that leader’s behavior and/or policies proved to be harmful to the organization or

was in violation of organizational values (Chaleff, 2003). The Follower Profile (Dixon,

2003) is a 56 item quantitative instrument that operationalized Chaleff’s survey and

measured the six constructs of courage to serve, courage to challenge, courage to assume

responsibility, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave. More detail

on Dixon’s instrument will be provided later in chapter 3.

Kelley (1992) developed a 20 item 6-point Likert scale self-reporting instrument

(The Followership Questionnaire - TFQ) respondent followership style and the strength

of follower skills as well as follower attributes that stand in need of improvement. More

detail on this instrument will be provided later in chapter 3.

Chaleff’s Followership Styles

Chaleff (2003) viewed followership two dimensionally. The first dimension was

the extent followers loyally and enthusiastically supported their leader(s) and the second

dimension was the extent the follower challenged the leader when that leader’s behavior

and/or policies proved to be harmful to the organization or was in violation of

50

organizational values. These dimensions posited the author, are divided into four

quadrants that are defined by Quadrant 1 which viewed followers as high support and

high challenge; Quadrant 2 which views followers as high support and low challenge,

Quadrant 3 as low support and high challenge and Quadrant 4 as low support and low

challenge. Within each of the quadrants, there are four distinct styles that fall into each

dimension. In Quadrant 1, the partner provides enthusiastic support for the leader, but

will question the leader’s policies or behaviors if it is perceived that those policies or

behaviors may prove harmful to the organization or are in violation of organizational

values. The attributes of this style include confronting sensitive issues, purpose driven

and mission focus and viewing authority in terms of peer relations. In Quadrant 2, the

implementer will enthusiastically support the leader and carry out their duties but are

unlikely to challenge their leader. Attributes of this style include being respectful of

authority, dependable and an advocate of the leader’s policies and behaviors. In Quadrant

3, the individualist has little regard for the leader and will not hesitate to question or

criticize the leader’s polices or behavior. Attributes of this style include being a reality

checker, confrontational and being not being intimidated by authority. In Quadrant 4, the

resource is the individual who just does their job, nothing more, nothing less. They are

focused on things other than the organization and are uncommitted to either the leader or

the organization. Attributes of this style include complaining to third parties about

organizational issues, only contributing the bare minimum for work requirements and

studiously avoids the attention of authority (Chaleff, 2003). The dimensional relationship

of these followership styles and their attendant behavioral attributes are depicted in

Figure 2.

51

Figure 2. Dimensional relationship of followership styles

High Support

Quadrant 2 Quadrant 1

"IMPLEMENTER" "PARTNER"

Dependable Purpose-driven

Supportive Mission-oriented

Thoughtful Risk-taker

Advocate Cultivates Relationships

Defender Holds self and others accountable

Team Oriented Confronts sensitive issues

Compliant Focuses on strengths and growth

Respectful of Authority Peer relations with authority

Low Challenge High Challenge

Quadrant 4 Quadrant 3

"RESOURCE" "INDIVIDUALIST"

Present Confrontational

Available Forthright

Extra pair of hands Self-assured

Brings specific skills Independent thinker

Uncommitted Reality-checker

Primary interests lie elsewhere Irreverent

Executes minimum requirements Rebellious

Makes complaints to third parties Self-marginalizing

Avoids the attention of authority Unintimidated by authority

Low Support

From "The Courageous Follower: Standing Up to and For Our Leaders," By I. Chaleff, 2003, pp. 41-43. Copyright, 2003 by I. Chaleff.

Chaleff’s Follower Behavioral Attributes

Chaleff views follower-leader interaction as a symbiotic relationship. The

courageous follower is the image partner in the Quadrant 1. The courageous follower,

according to Chaleff exhibits five specific behavioral attributes. The first attribute is the

courage to assume responsibility. This behavioral attribute is characterized as (a) eliciting

honest constructive feedback from leaders, colleagues and other stakeholders about

performance and value based behavior. This 360 degree feedback is essential in enabling

52

the follower to recognize opportunities for improvement and strengthen organizational

relationship; (b) engaging in personal growth through critical reflection (Brookfield,

1995), in order to recognize dark behaviors and attributes so that they may be overcome;

(c) shows passion about their work, the organization and the stakeholder being served,

bringing excitement and energy to the workplace; (d) strives for balance in their lives so

that they are not overwhelmed by the demands of both home and work; (e) takes the

imitative. If things need to be done, the courageous follower doesn’t worry about whose

job it is, or that someone else will take care of the problem. If it will serve the

organizational and its stakeholders, the effort is taken to take the necessary action without

waiting for instructions; (f) influences the organizational culture, by adhering to his or her

own values, respecting the values of the current organization, but providing positive

suggestions and example for others to embrace new values that enhance organizational

commitment and service to stakeholders; (g) sometimes breaks the rules within their own

sphere of influence in order to improve service to stakeholders and enhance

organizational effectiveness. Essentially following the old saw “It is better to ask

forgiveness than permission”; (h) breaks the organizational mindset by providing

evidence that information that challenges current organizational assumptions and enables

the leadership to examine fresh information that can lead to improved organizational

performance and better service to stakeholders; (i) improves processes through active

advocacy for flawed processes that impede effective stakeholder service and

organizational performance and provides constructive suggestions on improving

processes that may be redundant or outdated; and (j) testing new ideas through

advocating for pilots to demonstrate their effectiveness and efficacy (Chaleff, 2003).

53

Chaleff argued that the second attribute is the courage to serve. This attribute is

characterized and includes: (a) conserving the leader’s energy. This is done by enabling

the leader to make choices about actions or activities that allow their own lives to go out

of balance and providing the leader information that is based on fact and is as accurate as

possible, avoiding wasting the leader’s time with rumor and idle gossip; (b) manages the

communications process so that the organization and stakeholders have a clear

understanding of intent and messages throughout the organization and to external

stakeholders; (c) managing and acquiring leader access. is a delicate balance with

safeguarding the leader’s time and ensuring the leader hears important organizational

information; (d) managing crises through effective value centered crisis preparation,

supporting the leader, or acting leader, throughout the crisis, unburdening the leader of

extra or normal duties and reaffirming the sense of purpose of the group; (e) not being

afraid to admit when you don’t know and take the necessary actions to find out; and (f)

building natural and sustainable relationships with leaders so that the leader and the

common organizational purpose are served. The third attribute is that of having the

courage to challenge. This attribute is characterized by (a) using nonthreatening skillful

open-ended non judgmental questions that encourage introspection about the leader’s

behavior and leadership style and methods; (b) preparing a leader for feedback by using

defusing statements that convey both honesty and respect and are linked to specific

outcomes; (c) providing the leader feedback through value free statements that highlight a

specific behavior and the effects and future consequences of that behavior or action if it

continues; (d) providing the leader input on actions or decision already made through

focusing on future actions and involving key stakeholders in the decision process; (e)

54

avoiding “knee-jerk rejection” by proving a brief observation and recommendations to

the leader and providing room for the leader to think about the proposal so that the

subject may be broached at a later time; (f) overcoming groupthink by providing

evidence based information that challenges the status quo while providing well thought

out recommendations for consideration by the group; (g) obeying the leader even if the

follower’s recommendations were not followed, unless the decision is unethical or

immoral, then the follower has a duty to challenge the decision; (h) standing up to

abusive language and arrogant behavior by the leader, by firmly and respectfully in a

private place confronting the leader about the language and behavior and offer

alternatives that can be used so that the leader is not embarrassed or feels threatened to

include an agreement on engaging in acceptable language and behavior; and (i) privately

and tactfully confronting those whose personal behavior is threatening the reputation of

the organization and violates its values (Chaleff, 2003).

Chaleff asserted that the next attribute is the courage to participate in

transformation. This attribute places the follower in the position of being a change agent.

However, the transformation that Chaleff refers to is not organizational change or

transformation; it is personal change or transformative behavior of followers and leaders

from behaviors that endanger the common purpose and violates organizational and

personal values. Chaleff asserts that this type of transformation is one of transforming

behavior and attitudes. This involves an awareness of one’s core personality shaped by

life’s experiences, environment, and sense of reality and identity. This core ordering

process shapes who and what we are and is not easily changed. The core ordering process

is affected by new environments, crisis, and challenges. If there is too much of a threat,

55

the person seeks to address it using old processes based on their own sense of reality and

experience. If that effort fails, then physical, mental, and/or emotional breakdown may be

the result. The pain from this breakdown becomes a clear signal that a change in core

ordering processes is urgently needed. This pain leads to fear of the personal changes that

have to take place, but change is possible if the leader realizes that resistance to change is

a natural fluctuating process where openness to experimentation to new behaviors and

integration of realistic and achievable outcomes are major factors in making positive

behavioral change. Followers have a major role in being change agents or catalyst for this

behavioral change. They have a choice to enable the dysfunctional behavior, allow the

leader to self-destruct by doing nothing or facilitating a pathway to acceptable behavior

(Chaleff, 2003).

In order to be effective, Chaleff, further argued that followers have to be willing

to undergo a self-reflective process themselves to bring about positive behavioral change

within themselves and establish credibility with the leader. This change will certainly

bring about frustration as the leader realizes that the behavior is dysfunctional and they

are confronted with it. Chaleff maintains that the follower must assist the leader in

channeling this frustration and recognize they will have to face reactions such as anger by

the leader when they are confronted that they do need to change for the benefit of

themselves and the organization. Followers must also be cognizant of delaying behaviors

such as justification of the end as a reason for the behavior or denial that a problem even

exists or transference of responsibility to others as reasons for the behavior. Followers

should assist the leader by suggesting outside resources or an outside facilitator to help

with the change process. But above all, Chaleff asserts followers should be

56

compassionate and empathic in the process, while modeling the appropriate behavior

themselves and validating the leader as a good person, but being persistent in helping the

leader through the change process (Chaleff, 2003).

The final follower attribute Chaleff asserted is the courage to take moral action

that Dixon (2003) refers to as the courage to leave. Chaleff outlines several aspects of this

attribute that go beyond simply leaving an organization. Chaleff outlines several aspects

of this attribute that go beyond simply leaving an organization. Chaleff asserts that this

attribute is the one that takes more courage than any of the other attributes combined

because of the risk it poses to the follower. Leaving an organization certainly is an

extreme move. Chaleff argues that taking a moral stand when an organization is engaged

in actions that unnecessarily risk human life, health and safety for expediency’s sake,

violate the tenets of common decency, sacrifice stakeholder needs, concerns, basic

service, ignores the rule of law, overrides the common good in favor of the needs of

special interests and undermines the organization’s common purpose. Leaving an

organization requires extraordinary courage for the follower as there is little to no

personal benefit to disobey the order, question the assignment, defy the unreasonable

leader, resigning or threatening to or blowing the whistle. In fact in many cases, followers

have endured harsh treatment, being ostracized within their profession, fired and

subjected to public humiliation for taking moral action (Alford, 2008). However, Chaleff

asserts that the follower must weigh these risks through self- examination, reviewing

personal and organizational values and developing personal and financial contingencies

to protect themselves in the event they either have to leave the organization voluntarily or

57

involuntarily (Chaleff, 2003), in essence following the principle of self-employment

advocated by Lundkin and Lancaster (1990).

However, Chaleff strongly argued that followers have a moral duty to oppose evil

and immoral behavior, but using a balanced and vigorous approach to oppose it, while

being cognizant and being prepared for actions that may be taken against them in reprisal

for their opposition, especially by those leaders and enabling followers in positions of

greater power and authority than themselves. Chaleff cautioned that if followers choose

to stay and fight from within, especially if the follower feels that the price to leave is

simply too high to pay, then the follower must be aware that they have the responsibility

to either make incremental changes to mitigate the damage and victimization the leader

and/or organizational actions or policies are taking. Also, the follower must be aware that

by staying they may be accused of giving tacit approval to the harmful behavior or policy

and that stating that because of their position, they had no choice but to follow, will not

stand up in a court of law, public opinion or on moral grounds. In essence, Nazis accused

of war crimes tried to use the “they were only following orders” pleas as a defense, were

not successful either (Chaleff, 2003).

Research on Chaleff’s Concepts

As previously indicated, Dixon (2003) developed a 56 item 6-point Likert scale

instrument that operationalized Chaleff’s (2003) instrument into five constructs defining

followership in terms of Chaleff’s (2003) five behaviors associated with the courageous

follower, specifically, (a) courage to assume responsibility; (b) courage to serve; (c)

courage to challenge; (d) courage to participate in transformation; and (e) courage to

58

leave. The behaviors were then taken and the research conceptualized in terms of these

two hypotheses:

“Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in measures of follower behavior

relative to organizational level.”

“Alternate hypothesis: Measures of follower behavior change with organizational

level” (Dixon, 2003, p. 41).

Dixon (2003) asserted that level of followership increases as one rises in the

organizational hierarchy based on the rationale that leaders must demonstrate good

followership in order to be promoted. By extension, Dixon argues that measures of

followership are more evident the higher one goes in the organization. Dixon further

asserts that Chaleff’s (2003) premises about the framework of followership behaviors for

courageous followers are measurable and that the sum of these behaviors constitutes a

measure of followership.

The objectives of Dixon’s research were to determine if followership is indeed

measurable and if there is a relationship between followership and an employee’s level

within the organization. Dixon posits that according to Adam’s equity theory

subordinates within organizations devote less energy to responsibility and work to lower

their status within the organization. However, if their expectations are raised, then higher

performance will result (Adams, Gibson, Ivancevich & Donnelly, Hollander &

Offermann, Vanderslice, as cited by Dixon, 2003). These expectations would be in the

form of defining followership in terms of stewardship, behaviors associated with shared

power and influence and proactive actions to improve organizational performance and

adherence to values, not as passive subordinates who only do as they are told, have no

59

role in decision making and have no power or influence. Dixon further argued that the

higher status accorded to followers will reap dividends to the follower and greater

organizational contributions (Dixon, 2003).

The sample population in the Dixon study was 364 engineering and technology

employees from seven to ten organizations consisting of government contracting and

industrial organizations. Using TFP, the response rate was 44% with a 99% completion

rate of the instrument. The results of the study demonstrated that for four out of the five

behaviors measured if follower behavior did change with organizational level. In this

case, the executive level employees had higher mean response scores in all five behaviors

than the other three levels comprising middle level managers, supervisors and operational

staff. The operational staff had lower scores in all categories than the other organizational

levels. Scores ranged from 4.18 to 3.81 for executive employees in comparison to 3.39 to

3.60 for operational level staff. The scores for the middle level managers and supervisors

scores were relatively close statistically, 3.58 to 3.88 and 3.59 to 3.96 respectively with

actual supervisor scores in each category demonstrating slightly higher numbers. The

behavioral attribute of courage to participate in transformation did meet the null

hypothesis with scores reflecting mean response of 3.81 for both executive and

supervisor level employees and 3.74 and 3.66 for middle level and operational employees

respectively (Dixon, 2003).

Criterion and construct validity and instrument reliability were established for The

Follower Profile instrument. Specific details of the statistical values for validity and

reliability will be discussed in chapter 3.

60

In a quantitative study of fast food restaurants with sample population of 80

hourly employees and 21 managers, Ricketson (2008) examined the relationship of

leadership styles using the Transformational Leadership Model (Bass, 1990; Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006) and measuring transformational

leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership using the Multi-factor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 2004) and courageous followership

attributes (Chaleff, 2003) as measured by The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003).

Leadership styles served as the independent variables and courageous followership

attributes served as the dependent variables.

Ricketson, with permission of Dixon (2003), modified The Follower Profile

instrument for greater readability and translated into Spanish for employees whose

primary language was Spanish. The author found that although there were no significant

correlations with transformational leadership style and courageous follower attributes,

there were positive correlations indicating positive relationships in terms of the

interactions between mangers who displayed a transformational leadership style and

followers who exhibited courageous follower attributes. This relationship was posited by

the author to lead to higher levels of productivity and increased employee job

satisfaction. The research indicated that there was no significant statistical relationship

between the transactional leadership style and the courageous follower attributes.

However, the results did show that followers did have a higher positive correlations for

the attribute of the courage to take moral action (r=.214) than the other attributes and

negative correlations for the courage to assume responsibility (r= -.096) and the courage

to challenge (r=-.089) indicating a relationship where the followers were more likely to

61

take a position different from their leader and were more willing to quit their

employment. For laissez-faire leaders, there were negative correlations for the

relationships with all five follower attributes, indicating that this relationship could lead

to lower employee productivity and lower employee job satisfaction (Ricketson, 2008).

In a modification of the Dixon (2003) study, Ray (2006) examined the low

technology environment of North Carolina community colleges. The sample population

was the 57 schools comprising the North Carolina Community College system (N =

1168). One school served as the pilot study to test the validity of the instruments. The

independent variables were three levels of leadership, Level One comprising the senior

college leadership (N= 73), Level Two, comprising college middle management (N=

403) and Level Three comprising first line leadership of the colleges (N= 692). The

research hypotheses were that “Ho= followership behaviors and hierarchal levels are not

related and Ha = followership behaviors and hierarchal levels are related” (Ray, 2006, p.

41).

Ray found that the mean response for the courage to assume responsibility

attribute indicate the greater the hierarchal level the greater the demonstration of this

attribute, (4.038, versus 3.868 versus 3.777. This finding indicates that at each hierarchal

level, the leader perceives that he or she has the obligation, by virtue of their position, to

assume more responsibility. For the courage to serve attribute, there were statistically

significant differences between each level. While each level exhibited positive mean

responses, Level 3 had a lower positive response (3.806) than the other two levels and

Level 2 had a lower positive mean response than Level 1 (3.945 versus (4.196). The

author posited that in the lower levels, these leaders were more involved in taking care of

62

the next level supervisor to some extent. For the courage to serve attribute, all three levels

exhibited positive mean responses with Level 3 demonstrating a lower positive mean

response than the other two levels (3.758 versus 3.937 versus 4.089) indicating a culture

where the lower the level of leadership, the greater the reluctance to challenge the next

level. For the courage to participate in transformation attribute, there were no statistically

significant differences between groups, by all mean responses were positive (4.092,

versus 4.002 versus 3.901 indicating reluctance at all levels to engage in organizational

change and to serve as change agents, while recognizing there is a need for change. For

the courage to take moral action there was an increase of means response between each

level with a significant statistical difference between Level 1 and Level 2 (4.003 versus

3.811) Level 1 and Level 3 (4.003 versus 3.713). These results indicated that the greater

the level the greater the display of the attribute to take moral action, indicating the

perception that the higher the level, the more a leader has the power and authority to take

moral action. In essence Ray’s findings supported the research of Dixon indicating that

for the most part, the greater the hierarchal level of the leader, the greater the

manifestation of courageous follower attributes (Ray, 2006).

Kelley’s Followership Styles

As previously indicated, Kelley (1992, 2008) like Chaleff (2003) have served as

the seminal authors for the importance of recognizing the influence of followers within

organizations and the concept of followership as a companion versus being an appendage

of leadership. While Chaleff viewed followership in terms four styles contained within a

two dimensional framework divided into four quadrants, Kelley takes a more hierarchal

approach to followership styles based on behavioral attributes and interactions with the

63

leader, group, and organization and cognitive abilities based on independence of thought

and critical thinking. Kelley’s first concept of followers is based on their outward

demonstration of action towards leaders, groups, and the organization, which is defined

as follower active or passive engagement. The second half of Kelley’s concept is the

extent followers are independent critical thinkers and the extent they are dependent

uncritical thinkers. Independent and dependent being defined as the extent the follower

thinks for himself or herself versus the extent they allow the leader to do their thinking

for them as it relates to their direction, assignments, opinions, values and organizational

status, organizational goals, objectives, and direction.

Kelley divides followership into five distinct styles. Exemplary or star followers

are highly independent critical thinkers, have a great deal of positive energy, but

question, or challenge a leader’s decision or vision, especially if there are moral or ethical

problems, or if they feel the organization is heading in the wrong direction, but will

always provide an innovative way to accomplish the project or improve upon a process a

decision. This follower will support and sustain the leader if they buy-in to that leader’s

vision and decisions and serve as an organizational moral example. They are also team

players and will support the team so long as the team is moving in a positive direction,

but also will take action to facilitate the positive direction and not sit on the sidelines.

Exemplary followers will leave the organization if that organization’s culture violates

that follower’s sense of values, morals and ethics (Kelley, 1992). These followers share

many of the same behavioral characteristics of Chaleff’s partner followership style.

The second style is that of the alienated follower. Kelley argued that individuals

characterized by this style are also independent critical thinkers, but have a great deal of

64

negative energy. These are the organizational naysayers who view themselves as

mavericks, but are not team players and do not move in a positive direction. They like to

maintain the status-quo. They will not offer constructive criticism, but will highlight the

problem while offering no innovative solution and withholding their effort to solve the

problem (Kelley, 1992). This style shares many of the behavioral characteristics of

Chaleff’s individualist followership style.

The third followership style is that of the conformist. Kelley asserted that

followers who exhibit this style are sometimes known as yes-people. They are not critical

thinkers but have a great deal of positive energy and are dependent upon the leader for

direction, vision and thinking. They see themselves as doers, but are not innovative and

see the leader as always right regardless of possible negative moral consequences

(Kelley, 1992). This followership style shares many of the behavioral attributes of

Chaleff’s implementer style.

Kelley asserted that the fourth followership style is the passive follower also

referred to as a sheep. Followers who exhibit this style are not critical thinkers and like

the conformist they are not innovative and are dependent upon the leader to motivate and

direct them. These followers are content to follow the direction, decisions, and vision of

the leader regardless where that direction takes them, but display no opinion of the leader

one way or another and display neither positive nor negative energy (Kelley, 1992).

These followers exhibit many of the behavioral attributes ascribed to Chaleff’s resource

follower style.

The final followership style Kelley describes has no corresponding followership

from Chaleff’s model. The style is known as the pragmatist. Followers who exhibit this

65

style are independent critical thinkers, but are completely self-centered who are always

measuring direction of the winds of the organizational political climate before they will

take a stand. Their focus is always on what is in it for them or what decision will be for

their best benefit (Kelley, 1992). Figure 3 graphically depicts the relationships of those

followership styles to independent critical thinking and dependent uncritical thinking on

the Y axis and passive and active follower leader interactions on the X axis.

Figure 3. Followership styles

From “The Power of Followership”, by R. E. Kelley, 1992, p. 97. Copyright 1992 by R.E. Kelley

Kelley argued that by using The Followership Questionnaire, one can determine

through this self-reporting mechanism what followership style best describes them. The

questionnaire, through the scoring protocol, outlines where each followership style falls

66

in terms of scores for active engagement and critical thinking. The instrument consists of

twenty questions using a 6-point Likert scale that measured the level of active

engagement (the X axis) and critical thinking (on the Y axis). Followership styles are

then assessed based on the scores obtained from the survey. Table 1 outlines this

relationship (Kelley, 1992).

Table 1. Relationship of Followership Style to Followership Questionnaire Scores

Followership Style

Independent Thinking Score

Active Engagement Score

Exemplary High High Alienated High Low Conformist Low High Pragmatist Middle Middle Passive Low Low

Note. From “The Power of Followership”, by R. E. Kelley, 1992, p. 97. Copyright 1992 by R.E. Kelley

Research on Kelley’s Concepts

Several studies have examined Kelley’s followership styles using The

Followership Questionnaire. Beckerleg (2002) examined the extent of followership styles

perceived by a random stratified sample of 600 elementary and secondary Minnesota

school principals. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent these educational

leaders exhibited these followership styles based upon their personal demographic

characteristics and temperament. This quantitative study used three instruments to obtain

the data. The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) was used to measure

followership style, Keirsey Four Types Survey (Keirsey, as cited by Beckerleg, 2002)

67

was used to measure individual temperament (Idealist, Rational, Guardian and Artisan)

and the Administrative Demographic Survey (Beckerleg, 2002) was used to determine

the respondent demographic characteristics such as age, gender, educational level,

experience etc. The dependent variables were the five followership styles and the

independent variables were the four temperament styles and eleven personal demographic

characteristics. The research revealed that 86.7% of the respondents self-reported

themselves to be exemplary followers, while 13.7% of the respondents identified

themselves as pragmatists. The results indicated positive correlations and established

relationships using Chi-Square test between exemplary and pragmatist followership

styles all categories of temperament and three of the personal demographic characteristics

(number of staff supervised, annual salary and highest degree attained). There were no

statistically significant positive correlations and established statistical relationships

between followership style and the remaining eight personal demographic characteristics

of gender, age, years of experience, previous positions held, type of community, school

district size, level administered, and student population (Beckerleg, 2002).

The second study (Colangelo, 2000) examined whether there was a significant

statistical relationship between the immediate leader’s leadership style as measured by

the Leadership Effectiveness and Adaptability instrument (LEAD; Hersey, as cited by

Colangelo, 2000) and followership style as measured by The Followership Questionnaire

based on four specific behavioral attributes.

Colangelo, using the situational leadership theory (SLT) examined followership

as a product of influence of leadership style, specifically an analysis of task and

relationship behavioral aspects of the SLT and active versus passive engagement and

68

independent critical thinking versus dependent uncritical thinking strictly through the lens

of organizational goal achievement versus any interaction or relationship between the

follower and the leader, though he does argue that there is a shared relationship between

leaders and followers where both share the responsibility for organizational success or

failure. The author sought to determine the differences between the levels of influence of

democratic versus autocratic versus laissez-faire leadership styles have on the

followership style of those they supervise (Colangelo, 2000).

The setting of Colangelo’s research study was the College of Enlisted

Professional Military Education and a stratified random sample of 567 United States Air

Force enlisted respondents samples were obtained from three out of five enlisted

leadership schools from three separate locations in the United States Air Force in Europe

(USAFE). The author conducted a factor analysis to establish and confirm the statistical

validity and reliability of The Followership Questionnaire. Some minor changes were

made in order to improve readability and reduce confusion in responses, and the author

added two additional dimensions to followership not contained in the original instrument,

these dimensions were passion and team-mindedness. These two dimensions were

defined as the level of a follower’s enthusiasm in aligning their personal goals with

organizational goals and the extent that followers assisted others in achieving

organizational goals respectively. Dependent variables were the four specific

followership attributes; active engagement, critical thinking, passion and team

mindedness and independent variables were the democratic, autocratic and laissez-faire

leadership styles (Colangelo, 2000).

69

The results of Colangelo’s study revealed that respondents who had autocratic

leaders scored them significantly lower on the followership components of active

engagement, passion and team mindedness than those who had democratic leaders at the

.02, .00 and .02 significance levels. Respondents with laissez-faire leaders had no

significant differences in scores on all four followership components as compared to

autocratic or democratic leaders. The author concludes that although there is a significant

statistical relationship between leadership style and the four components of followership,

there is not sufficient evidence to determine if it is causal relationship (Colangelo, 2000).

Pack (2001), in a mixed methods study on nurses examined: (a) the predictability

of followership styles based upon collaborative leadership attributes, (b) whether the five

followership styles are equally frequent among the sample population, and (c) whether a

particular followership was more predominant among nurses than the others and if the

predominant followership style has a relationship with collaborative leadership. Like the

studies of Beckerleg (2001) and Colangelo (2000), Pack examined followership through

the lens of a particular aspect of leadership. However, in this case Pack viewed

followership in the context of collaboration and mutual influence and she examined

leadership as a construct of collaborative behaviors, processes and structure (Chrislip &

Larson, as cited by Pack, 2001) that seeks more to achieve organizational goals through

dialogue and mutual collaborative effort between leaders and followers versus being

more directive in nature (Pack, 2001).

The other major difference from the studies of Beckerleg (2002) and Colangelo

(2000) is the focus of the influence of followership style on leadership and follower-

leader interaction versus the influence of leadership style on followers in terms of

70

follower behavior and achievement of organizational goals. The Pack (2001) study used

The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) as modified by Colangelo to measure

followership style by adding the constructs of passion and team-mindedness to that of

critical thinking and active engagement (Pack, 2001).

In a convenience sample of 125 nurses throughout the eastern United States, in

the qualitative portion of the study, Pack sought to obtain perceptions of how they viewed

the concept of followers as an open-ended question added to The Followership

Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). Collaborative leadership was measured using the Working

Together: A Profile of Collaboration Questionnaire (Chrislip & Larson, as cited by Pack,

2004). Like the followership instrument, an open-ended question to obtain the

perceptions of the respondents to describe the one change needed to improve the

effectiveness of collaborative efforts (Pack, 2001).

The author’s qualitative portion of the study in terms of followership revealed that

four common themes describing followers emerged: “(1) lack of initiative, (2) passive (3)

unable to make decisions (and) (4) implied lack of initiative” (p. 162). These results are

supported in the literature concerning the common negative perceptions associated with

the terms follower and followership. The reported frequency of these themes were 4 no

responses and 121 responses. Frequencies based on sentence responses were 32

respondents indicating the term follower implied a lack of initiative, 14 respondents

indicating the term follower meant a lack of initiative, 17 respondents indicating the term

follower meant a passive person, 8 respondents indicating that the term follower meant

they were unable to make decisions, 25 respondents indicated that the term follower also

implied having leadership qualities. Shorter responses of less than a sentence indicated 14

71

respondents viewed the term follower as passive, 5 respondents viewed the term follower

in a negative light, and 6 respondents viewed the term follower in a positive light (Pack,

2001).

In the quantitative research portion of Pack’s study, the dependent variables were

the followership constructs of active engagement, critical thinking, passion and team-

mindedness. The independent variables of collaborative leadership were divided into five

constructs, “(1) context, (2) structure, (3) members, (4) process and (5) results” Pack,

2001, p. 138).

In terms of the relationships of demographic data to followership constructs, the

results of Pack’s study indicate that critical thinking had a positive relationship to age and

technical expertise. Correlation results with p= .05 and **=.01 showed high positive

correlations, ranging from .988 to .817, between the followership variables of active

engagement and team-mindedness all variables of collaborative leadership and moderate

to low correlation values, ranging from .761 to .186, for the followership variables of

critical thinking and passion and all variables of collaborative leadership (Pack, 2001).

In terms of statistical predictors, Pack found that the followership variable,

passion, demonstrated to be a better predictor of collaborative leadership than the other

followership variables. Colangelo (2000) had eliminated Question 12 of The

Followership Questionnaire instrument because it had highly loaded the factors of team-

mindedness and active engagement. Pack compared the results of Colangelo’s study by

conducting an additional analysis using 125 nurses in Michigan. The results of this

additional analysis revealed that by including Question 12, the only predictors of

72

collaborative leadership was active engagement and team-mindedness, validating

Colangelo’s results (Pack, 2001).

Because of the self-reporting aspect of The Followership Questionnaire, and the

social desirability factor as reported by Kelley (1992), Pack’s study revealed that the

results of the reported followership styles of the respondents may be skewed. 117

respondents or 93.6% reported themselves to be exemplary followers. Six respondents, or

4.8%, reported themselves to be pragmatists, one respondent, or .08%, reported to be

conformist and one respondent, or .08%, reported to be a passive follower. No

respondents reported to be alienated followers (Pack, 2001). These results mirror the

results in Colangelo’s (2000) and Beckerleg’s (2002) studies that revealed that an

overwhelming number of survey respondents reported that they were exemplary

followers.

Leadership Concepts and Followership

In the previous section, the literature outlined how followership styles and

attributes influenced interactions within groups, organizations and between leaders.

Theoretical models of leadership such as the situational leadership theory (Hersey &

Blanchard, 1982) and the contingency theory of leadership (Fiedler, 1967) have

determined the way leaders lead and how organizations have approached leadership

development over several years. Both the ‘situational leadership’ and ‘contingency

theory’ models of leadership are predictive, meaning that the leader’s style could be

predicted based on a certain designated situation. Whereas, now the current focus of

73

organizations centers on a more behavioral based approach to leadership and leadership

development (Northouse, 2007).

Organizations throughout the world have sought the ideal behavior based

methodology and paradigms to strengthen leaders and organizational leader development

efforts (Bass & Bass, 2008). The foundation of which is the establishment of an

organizational culture that builds on positively motivating and influencing organizational

members while simultaneously building the foundation for enhancing organizational

performance (Schein, 2004). Schein further asserted the primary organizational culture

embedding mechanisms are leader based. The follower-focused activities included in

these mechanisms are coaching, deliberate role modeling, teaching, allocation of rewards

and promotions (Schein, 2004). This premise is in contrast to the view that followers

exert more influence on organizations and groups than do leaders (Chaleff, 2003;

Kellerman, 2008; Kelley, 1992).

These support activities tie into the concept that leadership is a focus of group

processes where there is an interaction between two or more group members involving

the structuring or restructuring of a situation and group member perceptions and

expectations (Bass, 1990; Bass & Bass, 2008). Burns (1978) argued that leadership is an

interaction between two or more group members where one is a leader and the others are

followers closely mirrors Bass’ concept of leadership. This leader-follower interaction,

according to Burns, is an inducement of the followers by the leader to accomplish

specific goals that is a reflection of the motivations and values of both the leader and

follower(s) (1978). This indicates that leader-follower interaction is mutual based on a

common moral framework and organizational purpose (Burns, 1978).

74

This concept of leadership proposed by Burns (1978) is applicable to two

leadership theories, transformational leadership defined as the engagement or interaction

of two or more persons, defined as the leader and follower(s), resulting in both leaders

and follower(s) raising each other to higher planes of motivation and morality (Burns,

1978). The second concept is that of servant leadership defined simply as leaders

willingly serve as servants to their followers, where the leader places follower interests,

personal development, and empowerment foremost in the effort to achieve a shared

vision (Greenleaf, 1977; Spears, 1998; Spears & Lawrence, as cited by Smith, Montagno

& Kuzmenko, 2004; Laub, 1999; Spears, 2004). Both approaches focus on the behavioral

relationship with the leader, the follower, and the influences on them and the

organization, but from differing perspectives. An analysis of both leadership concepts

will provide an understanding of the similarities and differences and the following

synthesis of the best of both concepts will provide a model for use by organizations and

practitioners.

Analysis of Transformational and Servant Leadership Concepts

Transformational Leadership Model

The common component of both theories is that of moral leadership. This

concept, argued Burns, is one of shared leader and follower power, values, needs and

aspirations. The leader openly provides followers with alternatives and provides the

followers the opportunity to choose those alternatives and finally, the leader fulfills his or

her commitments to their followers, their organizations and to society in general. Other

authors have also argued that authentic leadership must have a moral component (Conger

75

& Kanuungo, 1998; Greenleaf, 1977; Kouzes & Posner, 1993; Wren, as cited by Bass &

Steidlmeier, 1999). This moral component was expanded into the transformational

leadership model where the authentic transformational leader is viewed as one with a

moral foundation centered upon legitimate values (Bass, 1990; Bass & Steidlmeier,

1999).

In addition to the moral leadership component, the ‘transformational leadership

model’ is centered upon the behavioral relationship between the leader and followers, as

well as, the influences on them and the organization where the leaders and followers raise

one another to higher levels of morality and motivation (Burns, 1978). Burns further

argued that the transformational leader engages the follower a whole person, while

looking for their potential motives and seeking to satisfy their higher needs. This

relationship of mutuality between the leader and follower as argued by Miller (2007)

citing Burns (1978) results in the conversion and elevation to followers into leaders and

influences leaders to become moral agents. In essence, Miller (2007) and Burns (1978)

asserted that the transformational leader looks beyond the task, but has in mind the

mutual development of the followers and the needs of the organization, while focusing on

a higher moral and ethical plane.

Bass took the Burns concept of the transforming leader a step farther. The

transformational leadership model is a broad base concept. Transformational leaders are

strong positive role models for their followers. They are engaged in positive

organizational change, they are visionary, looking beyond the horizon for organizational

opportunities for success and they are the architects of positive changes in the

76

organizational culture so that employees are empowered and are motivated to achieve

(Bass, 1985).

Flood, Hannan, Smith, Turner, West, and Dawson supported this concept citing

Bass (1997) and Burns (1978) and assert the authentic transformational leader looks

beyond their immediate self interest in goal achievement and focuses on doing the right

thing while motivating followers to strive for higher order outcomes while accomplishing

more than what is expected (Flood, et al., 2000). Bass (1985, 1990) formalized Burns’

(1978) concept of the transformational and transactional leader into a theoretical model

called transformational leadership model.

The model contains seven factors and three components: ‘transformational

leadership’, ‘transactional leadership’ and ‘laissez faire leadership’. The first four factors

describe the leader-follower interactions of the transformational leader and three factors

describe the leader-follower interactions of the transactional leader. The category of

laissez-faire leadership describes the absence of leader-follower interaction. Seltzer and

Bass (1990) citing Burns (1978) argue that Burns viewed transformational and

transactional leadership as opposite ends of a continuum whereas Bass (1985) conceived

both to be independent unidirectional dimensions where transformational leadership built

upon and was an augmentation to transactional leadership.

In this regard, transformational leadership leader-follower interactions contributed

to follower satisfaction, effectiveness and effort, while producing higher levels of

follower performance and effort than could occur solely by a transactional approach

alone (Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002; Sarros & Santora, 2001). The leader-follower

interactions of transactional and laisez-faire leadership are outside the relevant continuum

77

of leader behavioral interactions that are relevant to those described by servant leaders

are not part of this discussion, however, the leader-follower interactions of

transformational leadership are (Russell & Stone, 2002; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko,

2004).

As stated previously, transformational leadership consists of four factors. These

factors are: (a) idealized influence - is described by several authors as ethical charisma

(Conger & Kanuungo, as cited by Parry & Proctor-Thomas, 2002; Howell & Avolio,

1992; Kanuungo & Mendonca, as cited by Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Parry & Proctor-

Thomas, 2002). Bass and Avolio (1994), Bass and Bass (2008) and Bass and Riggio

(2006) asserted that leader-follower interactions demonstrated through in several ways.

Leaders engage in ethical and moral behavior, and through follower identification, their

followers emulate the leader behavior. The leader is respected, trusted and admired. The

leader shares the same risks as his or her followers; followers are treated consistently

versus in an arbitrary manner with their needs considered ahead of those of the leader.

The leader shares power and refrains from using it for personal gain and uses the power

to benefit the follower and/or the organization; (b) inspirational motivation – in this

factor, leaders provide challenging and meaningful work for the followers, which in turn

generate follower enthusiasm and optimism. This work motivates and inspires the

followers through a greater sense of espirit de corps. Leaders provide clear performance

expectations of their followers; engage the followers in building a shared vision and goals

and commits to that shared vision and goals; (c) intellectual stimulation – in this factor,

the leader challenges followers to be innovative and creative. The leader challenges old

paradigms, old processes and procedures. The leader solicits and encourages new

78

innovative ways from followers to solve problems without publically criticizing their

ideas, suggestions or mistakes (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio,

2006).

The final factor, (d) individualized consideration - leaders serve as coaches and

mentors to their followers to develop and encourage them. Leaders delegate tasks and

provide the followers with new learning opportunities in order promote growth and

experiences tailored to their individual differences, needs and desires. In order to enhance

follower confidence, the leader provides a supportive role. In addition, the leader takes

genuine interest in the follower as an individual versus being an organizational member.

The leader demonstrates genuine care and concern about the follower, (Avolio, Bass &

Jung, 1999; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Servant Leadership

As previously indicated servant leadership was defined as leaders willingly serve

as servants to their followers, where the leader places follower interests, personal

development, and empowerment foremost in the effort to achieve a shared vision

(Greenleaf, 1977; Laub, 1999, as cited by Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004; Spears,

1998; Spears & Lawrence, 2002). Russell and Stone (2002) citing Nair argue that service

and not power is the core of a higher standard of leadership. Burns (1978) supported this

argument by asserting leaders may be holders of power, but there is a distinct difference

in terms of personal interactions; power wielders may treat people as things while a true

leader may not. “(In essence)…naked power wielding can be neither transactional nor

transforming, only leadership can be” (Burns, 1978, p. 20). Greenleaf (as cited by Laub,

1999) argues that servant leaders use their power to promote the good of their followers.

79

Greenleaf (as cited by Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004), viewed as the

seminal author of servant leadership asserted that servant leadership is other-focused

versus self-focused on status or power, where the servant leader is characterized by

specific personal attributes and the influence on followers. DePree argues that servant

leadership is not a position but a fulfilled task where the leader is willing to follow as

well as lead. Through this process, the leader allows him or herself to become vulnerable

through personal accountability (as cited by Laub, 1999). Laub (1999) as part of his

servant organization model, defines servant leadership more comprehensively as

understanding and practicing leadership that places the welfare of the follower over

leader self-interest, by promoting the value and development of the follower, building the

community, practicing authenticity and sharing power and status to develop followers

and promoting organizational and stakeholder common good. While DePree (1992)

asserted some key attributes of the servant leader through his observations, Spears (as

cited by Russell & Stone 2002) synthesized Greenleaf’s writings, to provide a more

detailed listing of attributes associated with servant leadership. These attributes are: (a)

listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e) persuasion, (f) conceptualization,

(g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment to follower growth, and (j) community

(Russell & Stone, 2002).

In the development of an empirical model to evaluate servant leadership and the

servant organization, Laub (1999) developed six attributes as constructs and based upon

the listing synthesized by Spears (1998). These constructs are: (a) values people: the

leader believes in his/her followers and places their needs before their own. The leader is

receptive to the input of their followers, refrains from judging and listens to their

80

followers; (b) develops people: the leader provides the follower with opportunities for

growth and learning. The leader models appropriate behavior while offering

encouragement and affirmation; (c) build community: the leader develops strong personal

relationships while collaborating with others. The leader is tolerant and values diversity;

(d) displays authenticity: the leader displays openness and is accountable to others. The

leader is willing to learn from others while maintaining trust and integrity; (e) provides

leadership: the leader is visionary, takes the initiative and clarifies goals; and (f) shares

leadership: the leader facilitates a shared vision while sharing power and releasing

control. The leader shares status and promotes his or her followers. The constructs

developed by Laub (1999) provided a more effective conceptual comparison with

transformational leadership construct than other servant leader empirical models (Smith,

Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

Analysis of Transformational Leadership and Servant Leadership

There are many similarities but some differences in the transformational and

servant leader concepts. In general, both concepts share the concept of moral leadership

as described by Burns (1978), but differ in the approach to leader-follower relationships.

Greenleaf (as cited by Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004) argued servant leader

leadership is centered upon the attributes of the leader and the influence on the followers,

whereas in transformational leadership, is characterized by leader-follower interactions

where there is more a mutual beneficial influence resulting from those interactions (Bass,

1990, Burns, 1978; Miller, 2007).

81

In the first factor of transformational leadership, idealized influence, it speaks to

moral and ethical leader behavior being emulated by the follower. In addition, leaders

place the needs of the follower before themselves, selflessly sharing risks, while fairly

treating their followers and sharing power, or using it to benefit their followers the

organization, but not for their personal gain. The transformational leader’s ethical

charisma determines the level of their followers’ respect, admiration, and trust (Bass &

Avolio, 1994; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006).

In contrast, none of the factors of servant leadership describes any leader

attributes that are equivalent to ethical charisma. In fact, the focus of servant leadership is

not so much as follower reaction, but how the leader treats the follower. The other

previously described leader-based interactions of idealized influence are components of

values people, displays authenticity, and shares leadership. However, servant leadership

is restricted to power sharing versus including some type of limited exercise of power. In

addition, risk sharing is not a component of servant leadership (Smith, Montagno &

Kuzmenko, 2004).

In the second factor of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, the

leader’s focus is generating motivation, enthusiasm and espirit de corps by providing

meaningful and challenging work for the followers. In addition, the leader is visionary

and facilitates shared goals and vision with followers, while committing to them. In

contrast, servant leadership while not addressing the work aspect, follower motivation in

any of the constructs, does share the concept of facilitating a shared vision and goal

clarification in the provides leadership and shared leadership constructs (Bass & Avolio,

1994, Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

82

In the third factor of transformational leadership or intellectual stimulation, there

is no equivalent component in servant leadership with the exception of the values people

construct, which addresses valuing and not critically judging follower input.

In the fourth factor of individualized consideration, the leader grooms and

develops the followers, empowers them through delegation and opportunities for learning

and advancement, and shows genuine care and concern for them as individuals. In

contrast, the servant-leader uses the constructs of values people, develops people,

provides leadership, and shares leadership (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

In the servant leadership build community construct, there is a holistic approach

in the leader providing service and building meaningful collaborative relationships with

the larger community and society, whereas the transformational leader constructs only

deals with the leader’s organization. Finally, in the authenticity construct of the servant-

leader, the leader is vulnerable by being personally accountable and open with others,

displaying a willingness to learn while maintaining trust and integrity. In the final

comparison of these constructs, personal accountability can indirectly be referred to

through the idealized influence; inspirational; motivation; intellectual stimulation and

construct of transformational leadership as an aspect of moral leadership (Laub, 1999;

Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

In essence, according to Schein, organizational culture is the foundation by which

organizations can positively motivate and influence its members while enhancing

organizational performance. Schein further argued that the primary mechanisms for

organizational culture are leader based (Schein, 2004). Leadership style is considered part

of that mechanism and is defined as interactions involving two or more group members

83

where there is structuring and restructuring of a situation and group member perceptions

and expectations (Bass, 1990). These interactions are further refined when one group

member is termed the leader and the other, or others, are followers (Burns, 1978). These

leadership definitions describe the two concepts of transformational leadership and

servant leadership.

Both concepts are characterized by a moral component, where both the leader and

follower share power, values aspirations and needs (Burns, 1978). Transformational

leadership is a symbiotic relationship between the leader and follower that raises both to a

higher-level of performance and morality placing the needs of the follower before those

of the leader (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1990; Miller, 2007). The concept expanded beyond the

moral component, serves as the higher end of the transformational leadership model

involving transactional and laisez-faire leadership styles. The focus of the concept is the

leader-follower interactions at the organizational level. The transformational leadership

style consists of the components of idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985, Bass, 1990; Bass &

Avolio, 1994).

Servant leadership, originally a concept developed by Greenleaf (1977), views the

leader as the servant of the follower, sharing power, placing the needs of the follower

before his or her own and empowering the follower in order to achieve a shared vision.

Greenleaf saw servant leadership primarily as personal attributes of a leader. Spears (as

cited by Russell & Stone 2002) synthesized Greenleaf’s writings and complied the ten

servant leader attributes: (a) listening, (b) empathy, (c) healing, (d) awareness, (e)

84

persuasion, (f) conceptualization, (g) foresight, (h) stewardship, (i) commitment to

follower growth, and (j) community.

Laub (1999) combined these attributes and developed the servant organization

model consisting of the quantitative constructs of: (a) values people, (b) develops people,

(c) build community, (d) displays authenticity, and (e) provides leadership. These

constructs proved to be more compatible in a comparative analysis with the

transformational leadership constructs (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

A comparative analysis with transformational and servant leader constructs

revealed many similarities and few differences. The servant leader constructs showed

relationship with transformational leaders constructs with the exception of the ethical

charisma component of idealized influence. In addition, the displayed authenticity

component of servant leadership demonstrated an indirect versus a direct relationship

with the idealized influence component of transformational leadership. The build

community component of servant leadership had no equivalence among the

transformational leaderships constructs (Smith, Montagno & Kuzmenko, 2004).

Job Satisfaction and Followership

In the previous two sections of this review, the literature has demonstrated that

followership attitudes and perceptions are shaped and formed by the interactions of the

follower and leader manifested through various leadership and followership styles, it

further has been demonstrated that these interactions in effective organizations tend to be

mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships. Like in many of the studies cited, the

examination of leadership and follower interaction and organizational effects has been

85

primarily through the lenses of leadership style and influence. The same is true of the

examination of job satisfaction. Several studies have examined employee job satisfaction

through the lens of leadership style (Amburgey, 2005; Emery & Barker, 2007;

Kaltenbaugh, 2008; Kruglanski, Pierro & Higgins, 2007; Madlock, 2008; Walumba,

Orwa, Wang & Lawler, 2005), mutual leader follower interaction, organizational culture

and organizational commitment (Emery & Barker, 2007; Van Dick, Hirst, Grojean &

Wieseke, 2007; and Walumba, Orwa, Wang & Lawler, 2005), while some research has

been conducted in examining job satisfaction strictly through the lens of the follower

perspective looking at factors such as organizational culture (Johnson, 2001), occupation

(Strappe, 2002; Markle, 2006; Tewari, 2009 and Tillman & Tillman, 2008), employee

attitudes (Saari & Judge, 2004), education level (Poloski-Vokic, Klindzic & Dakovic,

2008), teamwork and organizational innovation (Lee & Chang, 2008) and family friendly

policies (Frye & Breaugh, 2004; Gainey, Kelley & Hill, 1999; Kurland & Cooper, 2002;

Saltzstein, Ting & Saltzstein, 2001; Spector, 1997; Thomas & Ganster, 1995).

Rathi and Rastogi argued that multiple organizations conduct annual Job

Satisfaction Surveys to measure the pulse of their organization. The management

problem may be high employee turnover, an excessive amount of job related grievances

or customer service reacted problems and viewing these issues as strictly leadership or

management issues or in some cases job satisfaction data is collected and analyzed by

organizations to retain outstanding and promising employees and to promote those

behaviors most beneficial to organizational success (Rathi & Rastogi, 2008). Spector

argued that using a facet approach of multiple constructs to examine job satisfaction

86

provides a more comprehension picture of the level of a respondent’s attitudes and

perceptions surrounding job satisfaction (Spector, 1997).

Job Satisfaction Theoretical Perspective and Supporting Research

In order to evaluate job satisfaction, the concept must be defined. Commonly, job

satisfaction is viewed generally as the employee’s attitude toward their job (Oshagbemi,

1999). Other authors have developed more refined definitions. Oshagbemi citing other

authors, such as Locke, described employee job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive

emotional state, resulting from the appraisal of one’s job performance” (Locke, as cited

by Oshagbemi, 1999, p. 1, HTML) and the concepts proposed by Wanous and Lawler

(1972) that also viewed employee job satisfaction as the affective reaction to the

employee’s appraisal of job performance as related to their deserved, anticipated or

desired outcomes. Other authors such as Tewari (2009) viewed employee job satisfaction

as simply the degree to which employees like their job. Spector (1997) has taken the

affective aspects of job satisfaction and examined other aspects of employee job to

develop a more comprehensive definition. Spector defines job satisfaction as “…simply

how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs” (Spector, 1997, p. 2).

This definition is the one that will be used in this study.

Authors Lawler and Porter argued that early assumptions about job satisfaction

were based on early studies examining correlations between job satisfaction with

demographics such as age, gender education or occupation. Citing Brayfield and Crockett

(1995) the authors asserted that employee morale was a major part of the foundation

behind employee job satisfaction. Other later studies revealed that there was a consistent

87

but low link between employee job satisfaction and job performance (Herzberg, Mausner,

Peterson & Capwell, and Vroom, as cited by Lawler & Porter, 1967), but these studies

failed to identify the cause of the link between the two. Later studies suggested that this

link was a path goal approach to job satisfaction where employees are motivated to do

things when there is a high expectation of receiving valued rewards such as pay,

promotions or other types of incentives (Lawler & Porter, 1967 and Vroom, as cited by

Lawler & Porter. 1967). Lawler and Porter, citing Vroom (1964), maintained that

employee job satisfaction is closely linked to the amount of rewards employees receive

from their jobs and the level of employee job performance is therefore linked to the

attainment of those rewards. Thus satisfaction does not cause performance, but the actual

performance itself is the proximate cause of job satisfaction. This premise is illustrated in

Figure 4.

Figure 4. The Theoretical Model

88

The authors explained that the wavy line between performance and rewards

indicated that extrinsic rewards, defined as those controlled by the organization such as

promotions, compensation, status, and pay, and intrinsic rewards, or those controlled by

the employee such as feelings of accomplishment or enhanced self-esteem as a result of

the work accomplished are imperfectly related to job performance. They further asserted

that extrinsic rewards are more likely to result in job satisfaction for employees at lower

levels of the organization versus intrinsic rewards which would likely result in greater job

satisfaction at the higher level or professional ranks of the organization. They maintained

that the level of job satisfaction is tempered by their perception of whether the level of

rewards is equitable, or not, based upon their effort and performance put into their work.

Thus this model predicts that employee job satisfaction is dependent upon employee

performance and the employee perception of whether the amount of rewards received for

that performance is equitable or not (Lawler & Porter, 1967).

In a test of the theory, the authors conducted a study of 148 middle and lower

level managers in five different organizations. The results of the study revealed moderate

correlations for the predictions that: (a) an employee’s degree of need for job satisfaction

is related to his or her satisfaction as rated by both their peers and manager, and (b) the

statistical relationship is stronger for managers than for non-managers. The third

prediction that examined the relationship between satisfaction and effort revealed

moderate correlations exist between satisfaction and performance and were higher than

the correlations between satisfaction and effort, validating the premise. The study also

revealed that intrinsic rewards were more closely related to performance than extrinsic

rewards. In essence, job satisfaction is more closely aligned with higher order needs such

89

as self- actualization than lower order needs such as compensation or status (Lawler &

Porter, 1967).

Spector’s definition suggested other aspects of the employee’s job are linked to

his or her job satisfaction. Citing Hackman and Oldham’s job characteristics theory,

Spector asserted that employees are motivated by the intrinsic satisfaction derived from

the successful completion of job tasks. In essence, if employees find meaning in their

work, enjoy what they do, and they will then be motivated to perform their job well.

Figure 5 outlines this theory that describes key psychological states: (a) job

meaningfulness, (b) job responsibility, and (c) employee knowledge of results that are

induced by five core job characteristics: (a) skill variety, (b)task identity, (c) task

significance, (d) autonomy, and (e) job feedback lead to employee job motivation,

performance and turnover (Spector, 1997).

Spector reported that Hackman and Oldham (1976) developed the Job Diagnostic

Survey (JDS) to assess the validity of their theory. He reports that follow-on studies that

modified the JDS (Sims, Szilagyi & Keller, as cited by Spector, 1997) or developed more

extensive versions of the instrument such as the Multi-methods Jobs Design

Questionnaire (Campion, Campion & Thayer, as cited by Spector, 1997) revealed that

significant correlations exists between job characteristics, job satisfaction and motivation

(Spector, 1997).

90

Figure 5. Job Characteristics Model

Another aspect of employee job satisfaction theory takes into account the

interaction between leaders and followers is their Heuristic model proposed by Van Dick,

Hirst, Grojean and Wieseke (2007). The authors argue that leader organizational

identification is also related to follower organizational identification. This organizational

identification then influences follower attitude and behaviors that lead to enhanced

organizational citizenship behaviors and increased follower job satisfaction (Van Dick,

Hirst, Grojean & Wieseke 2007). This is related to the previously described concept of

leader prototypicality where the leader’s display attributes defining the group and

represents the identity of the group (van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg , de Cremer &

Hogg, as cited by Schyns & Felfe, 2006). This aspect of group identification also

compares favorably to the findings in the Dvir and Shamir (2003) study.

91

Figure 6 depicts the relations advanced by Van Dick, Hirst, Grojean and Wieseke

(2007).

Figure 6. Heuristic Model

In their research, the authors conducted a series of three studies of 515

elementary, middle and secondary schoolteachers across several German states. The

second study sample consisted of 464 elementary and secondary school teachers and the

third study sample consisted of 388 travel agents from several German states. All samples

were stratified and random. The two studies measured organizational identification using

the School Identification Questionnaire (Van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher and Christ, as

cited by Van Dick, Grojean and Wieseke, 2007). Leader organizational identification was

the independent variable and both job satisfaction and organization citizenship behavior

(OCB) were the dependent variables (Van Dick, Hirst, Grojean and Wieseke 2007).

Job satisfaction was measured by Van Dick, Hirst, Grojean and Wieseke (2007)

using the Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, as cited by Van Dick, Grojean

and Wieseke, 2007) only in the first study. OCB was measured in both studies using a

92

customized instrument developed by Christ, Van Dick, Wagner and Stellmacher (as cited

by Van Dick, Grojean and Wieseke, 2007). In the second study, job satisfaction was

measured from a survey developed by Uber (as cited by Van Dick, Grojean and Wieseke,

2007).

In both studies, head teacher organizational identification was significantly related

to follower organizational identification. In the first study, head teacher organizational

identification was not related to follower organizational citizenship behavior, but were

related to follower job satisfaction. However, follower job satisfaction was significantly

related to both their organizational identification and their organization citizenship

behavior. Results for Study 2 were consistent with Study 1, with the exception of the

authors finding significant indirect effects of head teacher organizational identification on

follower job satisfaction after the Sobel procedure was used. In the third study,

organizational identification was measured using an instrument developed by Mael and

Ashforth (as cited by Van Dick, Grojean and Wieseke, 2007). OCB was measured using

an instrument developed by the authors. Job satisfaction was not measured. The results of

study were consistent with the findings of the first two studies where manager

organizational identification was significantly related to follower organizational

identification and follower organizational identification was significantly related to

follower OCB (Van Dick, Hirst, Grojean & Wieseke 2007).

Follower-Leader Interaction and the Influence on Follower Job Satisfaction

As the focus of this study is from the perspective of the influence followership

style and attributes on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction, this final section

93

of the literature review examines job satisfaction and the influence of transformational

leadership. It has been demonstrated that transformational leadership is based on mutual

influence by the leader and the follower, so that the follower maximizes his or her

potential and develops a symbiotic relationship with the leader so that both learn and

grow from each other (Bass & Avolio, 1994, Bass & Bass, 2008 and Miller, 2007). In a

comparative study of American and Kenyan financial firms Walumba, Onwa and Lawler

(2005) examined transformational leadership, organizational commitment and job

satisfaction. In a study of the banking and retail industry Emery and Barker (2007)

examined the influence of transformational and transactional leadership styles on

customer-contact employee organizational commitment and job satisfaction. In both

studies, leadership style was measured by the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire

(Bass & Avolio, 2004). In the Walumba, Onwa and Lawler (2005) study, organizational

commitment was measured using an instrument developed from Mowday, Steer and

Porter (as cited by Walumba, Onwa and Lawler 2005). Organizational commitment was

measured using an earlier version of the first study (Porter, Steer, & Mowday, as cited by

Emery & Barker, 2007). In both studies, employee job satisfaction was measured using

modified versions of the Job Description Index (Smith, Kendall & Hulin, as cited by

Emery & Barker and Walumba, Onwa and Lawler (2005).

Research Results

The Walumba, Onwa and Lawler (2005) study compared the effect of

transformational leadership, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on two very

distinct cultures. The stratified random sample of tellers and clerks were from seven

foreign and local Kenyan banks and five American banks with 164 respondents from

94

Kenya and 197 respondents from the United States. The transactional leadership style

was not examined. The data revealed that there were no distinct differences between both

sample in terms of correlations between transformational leadership style, organizational

commitment and job satisfaction. In both samples, correlations were significantly

positive. Significantly positive correlations occurred in both samples for the variables of

organizational tenure and age, with no significant differences. Correlations for

organizational tenure and organizational commitment and organizational commitment

and job satisfaction were overwhelmingly negative for the Kenyan samples compared to

moderately low for the American samples. These findings suggest that employees with

low organizational tenure have lower organizational commitment and job satisfaction as

compared to employees who have been with their firms longer (Walumba, Onwa &

Lawler 2005).

What is significant in this study is that data was similar to the findings of Van

Dick, Grojean and Wiseke (2007) where follower organizational commitment is

significantly related to employee job satisfaction. The study found that in both samples,

the follower-leader interactions, when the transformational leadership style was used

resulted in a reduction in power distance (Hofstede, 1980), between the follower and

leader, especially in the Kenyan sample, resulting in more open communication and

facilitating the symbiotic relationship between the follower and leader (Miller, 2007).

In the second study, Emery and Barker (2007) used participants from three

regional banks and one national food chain. Seventy-seven branch managers and 292

bank tellers and 47 store managers and 97 cashiers participated in the survey. The

findings of the second study were very similar to that of the Walumba, Onwa and Lawler

95

(2005) study, where the transformational leadership style showed significant positive

correlations for job satisfaction for both population samples. Organizational commitment

showed moderate positive correlations for transformational leadership style. However,

negative correlations were evident for both organizational commitment and job

satisfaction for transactions leadership styles for both samples. This differs from the

Walumba, Onwa and Lawler (2005) study where the transactional leadership style was

not examined. Since the transactional leadership style relies more upon contingent

rewards and variations of management by exception and a lower level of follower-leader

interaction, it stands to reason than the higher level of positive follower-leader

interaction would contribute to increased levels of follower satisfaction and motivation

when followers have a leader who uses the transformational leadership style (Bass &

Avolio, 1994, Bass & Riggio, 2006; Dvir, Eden, Avolio & Shamir, 2002; Sarros &

Santora, 2001). Based on the results of the above cited research and other studies cited in

this literature review, it is indicated that positive interactions between followers and

leaders stemming from the influence of a leaders transformational leadership style

contributes to increased employee job satisfaction. These findings support the premise

argued by Kelley (1992) and Chaleff (2003) where greater the level of positive

interactions between followers and leaders, the greater the likelihood of followers being

motivated to adopt exemplary follower styles and demonstrate more attributes associated

with the courageous follower and contribute to increased employee job satisfaction based

on intrinsic factors associated with job satisfaction (Lawler & Porter, 19967; Spector,

1997).

96

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions

The purpose of the study will be to test the hypothesis that hotel customer-contact

employees who perceive they are exemplary or star followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) will

exhibited greater level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) and display

greater levels of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997) than those employees who perceive

themselves to be passive followers (sheep), conformist followers (yes-people), alienated

followers or, pragmatic followers (Pragmatist; Kelley, 1992, 2008). The study will

examine two questions. The first question is: (a) are The Follower Profile (TFP)

measured indicators of followership behavior the same for all followership styles of hotel

customer-contact employees? The second question is: (b) what is the correlation between

exemplary, pragmatic, alienated, conformist and passive followership styles on hotel first

line customer-contact employee job satisfaction?

Research Design

The proposed research will be a two phase quantitative study using an exploratory

factorial design (Yang, 2005) which will include the use of factorial Kruskal-Wallis test,

linear regression (Holton III & Burnett, 2005) which will include a correlational analysis,

and a multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) so that “the effect of the independent

variable(s) can be examined after controlling for the effect of other variables that are

predicted to be related to the dependent variable” (Bates, 2005, p. 135). In this instance,

this means testing for any effects of demographic data on the dependent variables of job

satisfaction. The use of the exploratory factorial design will be used to examine ten

97

independent ordinal variables, (followership styles-exemplary; pragmatic; alienated;

conformist and passive; courageous follower attributes-courage to assume responsibility;

courage to serve; courage to challenge; courage to participate in transformation and

courage to leave), ten ordinal dependent variables (overall job satisfaction, pay,

promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, operating conditions, co-

workers, nature of work and communications) and seven control variables consisting of

demographic data (age, gender, education, income, length of employment, length of time

working for current supervision, and area of employment demographic data) which will

include nominal and ordinal levels of measurement serves as a means of testing in order

“to discover the common factors that drive the interrelationships among the observable

variables” (Yang, 2005, p. 184).

In order to produce predictors that will be capable of producing a statistically

significant regression model, simultaneous variable entry will be used (Bates, 2005).

Additionally, a Kruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric version of the one-way analysis of

variance will be conducted so the population distribution differences of five ordinal

dependent variables, and five ordinal independent variables can be examined (Norusis,

2006).

Sample

The sample will be stratified random sample of first line customer-contact hotel

employees from a major hotel chain that is of sufficient size to attain necessary statistical

power to significantly reduce the possibility of Type II errors. In order to achieve this

result, the sample size will be at least 250 participants (Barlett, 2005, Fowler, 2003;

98

Passmore & Baker, 2005). The target population of these employees will be from the

following areas: front desk, business center, concierge, bellhop, housekeeping, restaurant,

reservations, switchboard, lost and found, security, parking and valet. The sample

population will be drawn from one shift of employees and from properties that are widely

geographically dispersed. The rationale being that using the same hotel chain,

organizational level, occupation and shift will ensure a similarity in organizational

climate and culture, and similar organizational operating environments, while ensuring

differences based on random geographically dispersed settings. In addition, having all

aspects of customer-contact employee represented in the sample, will ensure that the

sample population has several common characteristics. The selected strata are

represented by one shift of employees as they can be viewed as a homogenous sub-

population. In addition, obtaining samples from four locations should result in obtaining a

large enough evaluative sample in order to meet statistical power requirements of the

study (Passmore & Baker, 2005). Participants will be accessed through permissions

obtained from the corporation, general manager of the property, and each participant

signing the Implied Consent Form.

Setting

The proposed setting will be two three or four star hotel properties in the Midwest

United Sates, (Michigan and Illinois) and two three or four star hotel properties in the

Southeast United States (Georgia and Florida).

99

Instrumentation, Variables, and Levels of Measurement

Independent variables:

Courageous follower attributes will be measured using The Follower Profile

(TFP) Questionnaire (Dixon, 2003). Previous studies have validated the construct,

criterion and content validities and internal consistency of the psychometrics of the

instrument (Dixon, 2003; Ray, 2006; Ricketson, 2008). The Dixon (2003) study validated

the reliability of the instrument. Details of instrument reliability and validity from these

cited studies will be addressed later in this chapter.

Using a similar method from the Ricketson (2008) study, the following aspects of

courageous follower attributes will be measured: (a) courage to assume responsibility, (b)

courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (d) courage to participate in transformation,

and (e) courage to leave. These attributes serve as the constructs for the instrument and

like the Ricketson study, the same version of the instrument will be used with the

exception of a Spanish language version. The revised version from Ricketson changed 13

items out of the 56 item survey to improve readability, specifically items 1, 9, 15, 17, 18,

20, 22, 24, 30, 33, 36, 38 and 45, and in the process affecting, each of the instrument

constructs with the most affected construct being that of leave with four changes and the

challenge construct being the least affected with one change (See Figure 8). The Spanish

language version will not be used in this study, nor will any managers complete the

survey as the focus of the study will be strictly through the lens of the follower, unless the

manager is functioning as a customer contact employee.

100

The instrument is a 56 item survey based on a five point forced choice self rated

5-point Likert scale consisting of the responses of “1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3

(somewhat agree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree)” (p. 42) and an ordinal level of

measurement. The number of items for each construct is based upon the description of

the associated behaviors that Chaleff has indicated for each of the behavioral attributes

(Dixon, as cited by Ricketson, 2008). Table 2 depicts the relationship to the instrument

questions and associated behaviors identified in each of the constructs.

Table 2. Dixon’s (2003) Follower Profile Matrix

From “An exploration of the relationship of leadership styles and dimensions of courageous followership, Ph.D. dissertation” by R. S. Ricketson Sr., 2008, p. 42. Copyright, 2008 by R.S. Ricketson Sr.

Unlike some instruments such as the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass

& Avolio, 2004), The Follower Profile does not have a multi-rater function, which could

be used to reduce bias to avoid an over reporting of courageous follower behaviors as

was identified in a study of transformational leadership model influence on job

satisfaction when an overwhelming majority of managers self-reported their leadership

style was transformational (Gerhardt, 2006). The courageous follower attributes will be

Behavior – Courage to Survey Item Number Assume responsibility 3, 7, 11, 14, 17, 21, 23,

26, 28, 32, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51

Serve 10, 15, 19, 24, 25, 27, 29, 31, 47, 54

Challenge 4, 16, 33, 40, 42, 52, 53 Participate in Transformation 1, 5, 6, 22, 30, 55, 56 Leave (Take Moral Action) 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 20,

37, 38, 43, 48, 49

101

measured as ordinal dependent variables in the first phase of the study and be an

independent variable in the second phase of the study.

The second independent variable will be that of followership style as measured by

The Followership Questionnaire (TFQ; Kelley, 1992). This was originally designed as a

20 item, self-reporting, with a 7-point Likert scale from 0 to 6, instrument. Rarely is

scored as zero, occasionally is scored as 3 and almost always is scored as 5. The level of

independent thinking is based on questions 1, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The

level of active engagement is based on instrument questions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and

15. The scores are then tabulated and then followership is based on where the scores fall

with independent thinking on the Y axis and active engagement on the X axis. Total

scores on both axis range between 0 and 60. In a modification of Figure 3, this

relationship is depicted in Figure 7. As indicated in Table 1, exemplary followers tend to

score high in the areas of independent critical thinking and active engagement. Alienated

followers tend to score high in independent critical thinking and low in active

engagement. Conformist followers tend to score high in active engagement and low in

independent critical thinking. Passive followers tend to score low in both independent

critical thinking and active engagement. Pragmatic followers tend to have centrist scores

in both independent critical thinking and active engagement.

Kelley cautioned that the scores reflect only a point in time and the follower’s

perceptions at that point in time. He argues that followership styles tend to change over

time based on experience and environment and illustrate perceptions not personality

types (Kelley, 1992). It is also noted that while the instrument is based on a Likert scale

indicating an ordinal level of measurement as they do not have an order of magnitude,

102

scores are tabulated as though they were based on a scale level of measurement where

there is a level of magnitude with a consistency between values (Fowler, 2003; Mirabella,

2006; Norusis, 2006.

Figure 7. Followership styles and scoring

INDEPENDENT, CRITICAL THINKING

Alienated 60 ExemplaryFollowers Followers

45

40

PASSIVE ACTIVE0 1 5 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 5 6 0

Passive 20 ConformistFollowers Followers

15

0

DEPENDENT, UNCRITICAL THINKING

PragmatistFollowers

From “The Power of Followership”, by R. E. Kelley, 1992, p. 97. Copyright 1992 by R.E. Kelley

In the cited studies, all followership styles are converted to variables with ordinal

levels of measurement (Beckerleg, 2002; Colangelo, 2000; Pack, 2001). In the Colangelo

study, the instrument was modified to avoid respondent bias and align survey adjectives

with scores. In this instance, the word “rarely” was replaced with the word “never” at the

103

zero score to avoid respondent confusion as the author argued that the word “rarely”

implies sometimes and the word “never” most closely represents the score of zero. In

addition, the author developed two additional constructs to be evaluated, team-

mindedness and passion (Colangelo, 2000). In the Pack study, the same modification was

used in the instrument also with a question to address the qualitative portion of the study.

Respondents were asked to use a response no longer than a paragraph to address their

perceptions of the word follower (Pack, 2001). In the Beckerleg (2002) study, no changes

were made in the instrument. In order to improve statistical accuracy and reduce

respondent bias, this study will use a version of the modified instrument used in the

Colangelo (2000) study with a change of adding the response of “Always” and scoring

this response as a six (6).

Dependent variables

Ten dependent variables are aspects of customer-contact employee job

satisfaction as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) which as

developed in the Spector study after some problems were discovered in measuring job

satisfaction of service sector employees. The JSS was instrumental in “bringing more to

the forefront aspects of satisfaction of remuneration, promotion, management styles and

relations, welfare, incentive, operation procedures, associate relationships, job

description, and communication” (Hwang & Chi 2005, p. 286). Spector reports that this

instrument measures overall job satisfaction as well as nine separate facets of employee

job satisfaction. The JSS is a 36 item, self reporting survey with a 6-point Likert scale

that ranges from “1 (disagrees very much), 2 (disagrees moderately), 3 (disagrees

slightly), 4 (agrees slightly), 5 (agrees moderately) (to) 6 (agrees very much)” (pp. 75-

104

76). The instrument provides the researcher the opportunity to examine an employee’s

total job satisfaction while also examining nine distinct components the scores range for a

total of 36 per facet to a total of 316 for a maximum score of total job satisfaction.

Spector cautioned that the instrument contains several negatively worded items

that have to be reverse scored in order t capture employee dissatisfaction. For example

the author cited Question10 that states “Raises are too few and far between” (p. 9). A

review of the instrument revealed that in addition to Question 10, half of the questions are

negatively worded will have to be reversed in order to accurately capture employee

perceptions of dissatisfaction.. These questions are: 2, 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24,

25, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 36 (Spector, 1997). Table 3 outlines the associated instrument

facets (subscales), description and subscale item numbers.

Table 3. JSS Facets and Subscale Contents

Facet(Subscale

Description

Item Number Note: r denotes item should be reversed

scored. Pay Satisfaction with pay and pay

raises. 1, 10r, 19r, 28

Promotion Satisfaction with promotion opportunities.

2r, 11, 20, 33

Supervision Satisfaction with the employee’s immediate supervisor.

3, 12r, 21r, 30

Fringe Benefits Satisfaction with fringe benefits. 4r, 13, 22, 29r Contingent Rewards Satisfaction with rewards (not

necessarily monetary) given for good performance.

5, 14r, 23r, 32r

Operating Conditions Satisfaction with rules and procedures.

6r, 15, 24r, 31r

Co-workers Satisfaction with co-workers. 7, 16r, 25, 34r Nature of work Satisfaction with type of work

done. 8r, 17, 27, 35

Communications Satisfaction with communications within the organization

9, 18r, 26r 36r

105

From “Job Satisfaction” by P.E. Spector, 1997, pp. 8-9.Copyright, 1997 by P.E. Spector. Researchers Hwang and Chi (2005) modified the instrument to examine certain

occupations. In a variant using hotel management practices as the guiding criteria,

reduced the number of questions on the Job Satisfaction Survey from eleven to ten. The

questions were a scale level of measurement and modified by a subtraction of an

additional question that was found “to have a factor loading below 0.5, leaving the

questionnaire with nine questions after the pretest. All nine questions were found to

achieve the significant level needed, using the double test of confirmatory factory

analysis and reliability analysis (fair remuneration α=0.75, job conditions α=0.74, and

general concept ex=0.99)” (p. 288). The variant questionnaire in the Hwang and Chi

study was found to have construct and conclusion validity as well as demonstrated

statistical reliability. In other studies, however, that examined a variety of other differing

professions, university faculty and staff (Amburgey, 2005); social service, mental health

and substance abuse agency employees ( de Carbonel, 2007); nursing, (Johnson, 2001);

recreation administrators (Kaltenbaugh, 2008) and academic librarians (Markle, 2006).

The researchers found the instrument satisfactorily met the requirements of their research

objectives in terms of the instrument questions, job satisfaction facets, instrument sub

scales and established statistical reliability and validity. Based on the findings of the latter

cited studies, no variant of the JSS will be required for this research. The other dependent

variables will be the five courageous follower attributes, measured by The Follower

Profile (Dixon, 2003) as influenced by the five followership styles as previously defined

and stated

106

Control variables:

The researcher will modify the demographic data survey that is currently part of

The Follower Profile consisting of 20 items/questions (Appendix B). The survey will

measure the four control variables of age (scale variable, five items), gender, (nominal

variable-two items), education (ordinal variable, five items), and job description of

primary job (eight - all nominal variables). The control variables will be evaluated to

adjust for any effects on the dependent variable through the use of a multiple analysis of

co-variance (MANCOVA). While each section of the survey will have multiple items, a

respondent will only have to respond to one item, for instance under (a) Gender: Male,

Female, (b) Education: Did not complete high school, High school gradate, Some college,

College graduate, (c) Age: 18-35 years, 36-45 years. A factor analysis will be used to

validate this portion of the instrument as an acceptable means to test and validate an

“instrument used to measure an abstract concept with either a theoretical or practical

interest’ (Yang, 2005, p. 182).

Data Collection

The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992), The Follower Profile (Dixon,

2003), Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997) and a demographic data questionnaire as

part of The Follower Profile, will be administered in a group setting at each location.

Each questionnaire will be marked by the researcher so that the researcher may be able to

identify participants, in the event a participant wants to be notified and so each

instrument can be separated and placed in a separate box bearing the number appearing

on the instrument. All data will be combined so that no individual participant can be

107

readily identified. The on-site group administration of the survey instruments are being

used to alleviate the logistical issues involved with administering to a larger sample

population, while ensuring a high response rate. According to Fowler (2003), an on-site

administration of an instrument is relatively low cost, allows the researcher to answer

respondent questions, clarify issues, and generally ensures a higher cooperation rate

among the participants.

Treatment/Intervention

There will be no treatments or interventions in this study as this is a field study

where the participants will be asked only to complete four questionnaires.

Data Analysis

Procedure

As previously stated, the study will be conducted in two phases. In the first phase,

the influence of five ordinal independent variables of followership style (exemplary,

alienated, conformist, passive and pragmatic) (Kelley, 1992) will be determined for five

dependent variables of courageous follower attributes (courage to assume responsibility,

courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in transformation, and

courage to leave) (Dixon, 2003) using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Since the sample

population of hotel employees will be from four geographically dispersed hotel

properties, assumptions of normality may not be able to be applied.

This nonparametric analysis will examine five groupings of customer-contact

hotel employees based on their followership style and courageous follower attributes The

108

Kruskal-Wallis test is being used to determine whether the population means of

courageous follower attributes are equal across all five followership style groupings. The

data that will be collected for the five groups are independent samples from the customer-

contact hotel employee population. This meets the assumption of independence. The

other assumption is that the distribution shape is essentially the same for all five groups

as well as the five groups having equal variances.

The second phase of the study will be the examination of the influence of the five

independent variables of followership style (Kelley, 1992) on the ten dependent variables

of employee job satisfaction (Spector, 1997), using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Pearson

Correlation test. As in Phase 1 of the study, since assumptions of normality may not

apply, the Kruskal-Wallis test will be conducted first in order to address the assumptions

of normality and independence needed for the tests for correlation. After this analysis is

completed, an analysis will be conducted to test for a linear relationship between the

independent and dependent variables to determine the level of correlation. During this

phase, a MANCOVA, or multiple analysis of co-variance, will be conducted to determine

if the control variables have any effect on the dependent variable so that adjustments in

calculations can be made.

Validity and Reliability

Overview

Fowler (2003) states that “the purpose of a survey is to produce statistics, that is a

quantitative or numerical description about some aspects of the study population” (p. 1).

Barlett (2005) argues that survey research is used to collect information from individuals

109

in order to evaluate and measure organizationally relevant constructs. Spector (1997)

asserts that measurements of job satisfaction are quantitative construct facets of attitudes

and perceptions, making them perfect candidates for statistical analysis using surveys.

The studies by Dixon, (2003) and Colangelo (2000) which examined the constructs of

courageous followership behavior and followership style as quantitative construct facets

also used surveys to conduct their statistical analysis.

Trochim (2006a) asserts validity is the best available approximation to the truth of

a given proposition, conclusion or inference. Ohlund and Yu (1999), Trochim (2006a)

and Scandura and Williams (2000) citing Austin, Boyle, and Lualhatii (1998), Cook and

Campbell (1976) and Sackett and Larson (1990) defined four types of validity. The first

of these four definitions are internal validity concerns causality as asserted by a true co

variation between the variables under investigation and the procedures used to gather the

data demonstrating the cause preceding the effect. The second definition is external

validity and refers to generalizing across times, setting and individuals as a true

representation of their relationships of the constructs to different populations,

circumstances and measures. The third definition is construct validity, which concerns

how well the measures employed fit the theories and has a test designed for those

measures. The most rigorous test an instrument can undergo is construct validity

(Trochim, 2006b). Construct validity is viewed as determining whether the construct is

measuring what aspects of a theory it is designed to measure (Cooper & Schindler, 2008;

Hinkin, 2005). Hinkin (2005) argues that construct validity is not totally achieved until

both convergent validity which is measured using a multi-trait, multi-method procedure

and discriminant validity, which is calculated using cross construct correlations (Hinkin,

110

2005; Trochim, 2006c) are achieved. However, Cooper and Schindler (2008) assert that

convergent validity is an important first step in determining construct validity.

Convergent validity calculated an inter-item correlational analysis, is

demonstrated by evidence that shows the higher the r value among the observed values of

the construct items, the greater the convergent validity. In determining discriminant

validity through cross construct analysis, the correlations provide evidence that

demonstrate whether that the construct items are not related to each other, as indicated by

the r values; In essence, the lower the r value, the greater the evidence that discriminant

validity exist (Hinkin, 2005; Trochim, 2006b). Finally, statistical conclusion validity,

which, refers to the ability to draw conclusions, based on statistical evidence of co

variation as well as prediction.

In the study of management research methodologies, Scandura and Williams

(2002) citing Cook and Campbell, indicates that in all quantitative research designs, the

understanding and overcoming threats to internal, external, construct and statistical

conclusion validity is crucial in obtaining significant reportable results. This argument is

supported by Stone (as cited by Scandura & Williams, 2000) who argues that the body of

organizational behavioral science is dependent on research reporting strong indications of

internal, external, construct and statistical conclusion validity where the failure to do so

poses significant challenges in obtaining valid reportable results.

As the proposed study is a field experiment and uses three survey instruments,

Ohlund and Yu (1999) outline several threats to internal and external validity that this

type of study would face. The relevant threats to internal validity are: (a) history - if the

organization underwent a major reorganization right after the first phase of the study was

111

completed, this specific event would change the outcomes. This event could cause a

change in settings where the control variable of the job description of the primary job

could have an effect on the independent variable as changes in organization and result in

changes in who are followers; (b) instrumentation - significant changes in the survey

instrument during the course of the study could cause changes in variable and construct

definition, jeopardizing construct and statistical conclusion validity; (c) selection of

subjects - If the study sample is not a stratified random sample of statistically significant

size, conducted in a systematic fashion increased sampling error, the introduction of bias

and Type II errors would result (Fowler, 2003; Passmore & Baker, 2005); (d) maturation

- if there was, a prolonged study such as in a longitudinal study, participants could

change their views of their concept of followership style and courageous follower

attributes; and, finally, (e) experimental mortality - a loss of participants could occur due

to events such as reorganization or a layoff due to an economic downturn. The reduction

in sample size as well as employee attitudes could affect the outcomes of the study. The

only relevant factor affecting external validly is interaction effects of selection biases and

the experimental variables. In this, case the dependent variable of job satisfaction and the

control variable of job description of primary job.

Reliability and Threats to Reliability

Reliability which is defined as the consistency and repeatability of (the

measurement)” (Trochim, 2006b, p. 1, HTML version), is key factor in quantitative

research success. Trochim identified four types of reliability they are: (a) inter-rater or

inter-observer reliability, (b) test-retest reliability, (c) parallel forms reliability, and (d)

internal consistency reliability. The relevant concept for the proposed study is internal

112

consistency reliability. While Trochim described several techniques such as split half,

and average inter-item and item total correlations, correlation and item total correlations,

the use of Cronbach’s alpha is the most widely accepted determinant of internal

consistency reliability (Reynaldo & Santos, 1999). Threats to reliability include poorly

worded questions that cause confused or double meaning, combining two questions into

one, ill planned use of the agree-disagree format in questions, poorly designed constructs

that have reverse scales close together or in the same question. All of these items may

cause Cronbach’s alpha scores to be below .70 and in some cases negative in the case of

questions with reverse scales (Fowler, 2003).

Bias

Bias is an overarching concept that is often the center of threats to validity and

reliability and these threats based on the two-phase study design, could create issues for

the introduction of bias into the study. This is especially important as the proposed study

is using three survey instruments. Fowler, 2003 asserts that bias can enter survey research

through question design such as leading questions or sampling by the selection of those

populations who will respond in a pre-determined way. Passmore and Baker (2005) are

more specific arguing that the non-random nature of convenience and purposive sampling

strategies in quantitative research studies, introduce sampling errors in the statistical

analysis. Yang (2005) citing Hunter and Schmidt (2004) argue that several bias threats

that could affect research outcomes: (a) independent/or dependent variable perfect

construct validity deviation, and (b) transcriptional or reporting errors. Trochim, (2006a)

asserts that using only one method to measure to determine construct or mono-method

bias provides an incomplete picture of the construct examined and is a threat to construct

113

validity. The following sections will detail the empirically derived statistical reliability

and validity of the instruments being used in this study.

The Followership Questionnaire (TFQ)

Colangelo (2000) examined four constructs (a) independent critical thinking, (b)

active engagement, (c) passion, and (d) team-mindedness. In an effort to test construct,

convergent and divergent validity, the author conducted a four factor analysis and

Oblimin with normalization. Table 4 depicts the results of his factor analysis.

Table 4. Factor Analysis of Kelley’s (1992) Followership Questions

Loadings for 4-Factor Solution Factor Eigenvalue Question Oblique Rotation

1 2 3 4 1 5.763 1 -.005 .006 .746 -.001 2 2.163 2 -.002 -.001 .773 -.003 3 1.295 3 .126 -.002 .719 .101 4 1.025 4 .128 -.007 .589 .127 5 .901 5 .597 .007 .226 -.001 6 .875 6 .548 .006 .294 .003 7 .779 7 .737 -.003 -.007 -.156 8 .722 8 .557 .003 -.131 .337 9 .685 9 .590 -.004 .194 .160 10 .646 10 .473 .004 .003 .380 11 .612 11 .692 .003 .005 .133 12 .587 13 .006 -.100 .113 .651 13 .517 14 .200 .104 .002 .574 14 .490 15 .009 -.117 .294 .558 15 .443 16 -.007 .005 -.007 .712 16 .421 17 .133 .639 -.008 -.005 17 .371 18 .001 .790 .141 -.180 18 .357 19 -.001 .779 .001 .006 19 .347 20 -.002 .583 -.101 .363

From “Followership: Leadership styles. Ph.D. dissertation” by A. J. Colangelo, 2000. p. 48. Copyright, 2000 by A. J. Colangelo.

114

The data indicates under Component 1, questions 5-11 loaded eigenvalues of

.597, .548, .737, .557, .590, .473, and .692. Under Component 2, questions 16-19 loaded

eigenvalues of .639, .790, .779, and .583. Under Component 3, questions 1-4 loaded

eigenvalues of .746, .773, .719, and .589. Under Component 4, questions 12-15 loaded

and .712 eigenvalues of .691, .574, and .598. In the Pack (2001) study, no reliability and

validity tests were conducted. In the Beckerleg (2002) study, she cites Kelley (1992) who

had used the survey extensively in major organizations such as Upjohn, Hewlett-Packard,

IBM and Prudential and statistical test that were conducted at the Graduate School of

Industrial Administration at Carnegie-Mellon University. However, no statistics were

provided that indicated the instrument had a Cronbach’s Alpha of at least .70. The study

of Colangelo indicated statistical validity and reliability within acceptable values.

The Follower Profile (TFP)

In the Dixon (2003) study, the author established instrument reliability using

Cronbach’s Alpha. The value obtained was .956, a value far above the minimum

acceptable value of .70. Dixon, citing Neuman (1991) asserts that using that in addition to

the use of Cronbach’s Alpha, the use of the Spearman-Brown split-half method was also

acceptable menthol for determining instrument reliability. In this procedure, the received

response is divided into two groups and statistical calculations arte made to see if both

halves provide the same response. The Spearman-Brown statistic is used to determine the

extent of correlation between both halves. The calculation revealed a strongly positive

result of instrument reliability with the value of .936, also far above the established

acceptable value of .70. In a validation test, the Gutman split-half procedure, a variant of

Cronbach’s Alpha, was used, resulting in a value of .934.

115

Instrument face validity was established through extensive literature review, focus

group interactions, independent judge input and a review by Ira Chaleff (Chaleff, as cited

by Dixon, 2003). Additional instrument pre-test and pilot tests results indicated criterion

validity values of Spearman’s Rho of .697 and Pearson Product Moment of rsp= .739,

meaning a large effect correlation (Cohen, as cited by Dixon, 2003) for The Follower

Profile. Content validity was established using multiple independent judges to evaluate

the instrument (Neuman, as cited by Dixon, 2003) to include theory author Ira Chaleff

and former Chaleff colleague Timmelli (as cited by Dixon, 2003). In Figure 9, each

behavior illustrates an imbalance between behaviors and the number of questions

associated with each. Dixon argues that this imbalance is consistent with Chaleff’s (2003)

theoretical construct.

Construct validity was established using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

The CFA indicated that the goodness of fit indices demonstrated that the sample

variances were adequately accounted for. The author reported that with the exception of

item 49, the courage to assume responsibility, all other hypothesized loadings for the

solution were statistically significant (alpha = .05) and were relatively substantial. The

author also reported that the fitted model demonstrated some evidence of discriminant

validity with values being leas than 1.00 and ranged from .339 (courage to leave/courage

to serve) to .945 (Courage to leave/courage to challenge; Dixon, 2003).

Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)

In an internal consistency test of instrument reliability involving a sample of 3067

JSS respondents, Spector reports that the data indicated a coefficient alpha of .60 for co-

workers and .91 for the total scale, a little below the acceptable standard of .70 for the

116

co-worker result (Nunnally, as cited by Spector, 1997). In a test-retest of the instrument

18 months later, reliability values ranged from .37 to .74, reflecting the stability of the

instrument over time, despite a major reorganization, employee layoffs and a replacement

of senior leadership. Table 5, outlines the results of the internal consistency reliability

instrument tests.

Table 5. Internal Consistency/Reliability for the Job Satisfaction Survey

Subscale Coefficient Alpha

Test/Retest Reliability

Pay .75 .45

Promotion .73 .62

Supervision .82 .55

Benefits .73. .37

Contingent Rewards .76 .59

Operating Procedures .62 .74

Coworkers .60 .64

Nature of Work .78 .54

Communication .71 .65

Total .91 .71

Sample Size 2870 43

From “Job Satisfaction” by P.E. Spector, 1997, p. 10. Copyright, 1997 by P.E. Spector.

Spector reported that evidence of instrument validity the JSS has been provided

through numerous studies that compare similar subscales from different instruments on

the same sample population of employees. Citing a study using the Job Descriptive Index

(JDI; Smith, Kendal & Hulin, 1969), the subscales of pay, promotion, supervision,

coworkers, and nature of work on the JSS correlated strongly with similar scales on the

JDI with values of r= .61 for coworkers and r= .80 for supervision. (Spector, 1997).

117

Ethical Considerations

Permission to conduct the study will be obtained by the headquarters of Marriott

International , the general manager of each hotel and of each of the participants. All

participants will be provided an informed consent form informing them that their privacy

confidentiality and anonymity in regards to their participation in the study will be

maintained, the purpose of the study, how the data will be safeguarded, how long it will

be kept, who has access to the data, how the results will be used and the benefits of the

study. The participants will be informed that their participation is strictly voluntary and

that they may withdraw from the study at any time. When the form is signed, this will

imply consent to participate in the study. Accommodations will be made for all special

needs participants to ensure their comfort, safety and security. Additionally, no

supervisors will be in the room when the employees will complete their surveys to ensure

their there is no element of intimidation or coercion.

The request for permission from Marriott International and the Letter of

Introduction to the general manager from each of the hotels in the study will contain

purpose of the study, how the results will be used risks and organizational and the

benefits of the study and provisions made for employee and organizational privacy

confidentiality and anonymity. The risks associated with participation in the study are

minimal. In addition, permission for the research will also be obtained in accordance with

the protocols established by the Capella University Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Data collected will be combined so that no individual respondent can be

identified. No personal information will be collected. Data will be kept by the researcher

and will be safeguarded and secured by the researcher for a period of seven years.

118

Permission to use, modify and reproduce The Followership Questionnaire

(Kelley, 1992), The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003) and the Job Satisfaction Survey,

(Spector, 1997) has been granted from all three of the authors of these instruments.

119

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Purpose of the Study

The overall purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that hotel customer-

contact employees who perceive they are exemplary or star followers (Kelley, 1992,

2008) exhibit greater level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) and display

greater levels of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997) than those employees who perceive

themselves to be passive followers (sheep), conformist followers (yes-people), alienated

followers or, pragmatic followers (pragmatist) (Kelley, 1992, 2008). The study used a

quantitative methodological approach and utilized descriptive statistics to discover the

relationships between the dependent and the independent variables. A survey was

conducted surveying hotel customer-contact employees from a major hotel chain that is

of sufficient size to attain necessary statistical power to significantly reduce the

possibility of Type II errors (Barlett, 2005, Fowler, 2003; Passmore & Baker, 2005).

Data Collection and Setting

This chapter outlines the data collection process and provides a presentation of the

research results based upon the examination of participant responses to The Followership

Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992), The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003), and The Job

Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997). These results include data statistical analysis as well

as general observations of the collected data.

In chapter 3, it was outlined that the setting would be two three or four star hotel

properties in the Midwest United Sates, (Michigan and Illinois) and two three or four star

120

hotel properties in the Southeast United States (Georgia and Florida). On August 12,

2009, the Executive Vice-President of Human Resources of Marriott International wrote

that due to serious operational issues, this research request would have to be declined.

A small luxury (four and a half star) hotel and resort chain in British Columbia,

agreed to have the research conducted at all eleven of their facilities in British Columbia

with all of their customer-contact employees. The facilities are dispersed throughout the

Columbia Basin and the Canadian Rockies. While the setting was changed, the

methodology, risks and ethical considerations associated with the study remained the

same. The identity and specific locations of the research sites are being kept anonymous

at the request of the hotel chain.

Data Collection

In order to examine the hypotheses outlined in this study, data was collected,

using group administration of the survey instruments consisting of followership styles

based on the participant scores designating them as exemplary followers, conformist

followers, alienated followers, pragmatist followers and passive followers using The

Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). The hypotheses also required that data be

collected reflecting participant scores reflecting the level of courageous follower

attributes, specifically the attributes of courage to assume responsibility, courage to

challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in transformation and courage to

leave/display moral action using The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003). Finally data was

collected pertaining to employee job satisfaction using participant responses to the Job

Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997).

121

This chapter is divided in three sections. In the first section, descriptive statistics

of the dependent and independent variables are displayed. In the second section,

statistical tests are conducted to determine whether or not the proposed alternative

hypotheses are accepted. In the third and final section, a summary of the main findings is

provided.

Section 1: Descriptive Statistics

A total of 426 surveys were distributed to 142 front-line hotel customer-contact

employees. The total employee population for the hotel chain is 190 employees of which

142 are customer-contact employees in the eight categories of guest services agent, room

attendant, bellman, night auditor, catering coordinator, guest services manger, assistant

manager and corporate office staff. One hundred twenty employees participated in the

study for a response rate of 84.5%. The 142 customer-contact employees served as the

target population of the study. A description of the characteristics of respondents is

provided in Table 6.

Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Employees

Characteristic N % Gender

Male 33 27.5 Female 87 72.5

Age 16-25 years 28 23.3 26-30 years 17 14.2 31-44 years 43 35.8 45-54 years 19 15.8 55 years and older 13 10.8

122

Table 6. Demographic Characteristics of Employees Continued

Education

Not a High School/Secondary School Graduate 9 7.5 High School/Secondary School Graduate 35 29.2 Some College 36 30.0 College Graduate 37 30.8 Some Graduate work and beyond 3 2.5

Job Description Guest Services Agent 36 30.0 Room Attendant 55 45.8 Bellman 1 0.8 Night Auditor 13 10.8 Catering Coordinator 2 1.7 Guest Services Manager 7 5.8 Assistant Manager 1 0.8 Corporate Office Staff 5 4.2

As described in Table 6, respondents to the survey were mostly females (72.5%).

Respondents came from all age groups with the 2 biggest age groups being 31-44 years

(35.8%) and 16-25 years (23.3%). The respondents were divided mainly into 3 equal

groups when responding to the education question; those groups being the “High

School/Secondary School Graduate” group, the “Some College” group and the “College

Graduate” group (each 30%). Finally, respondents’ demographics showed that these

employees were representative of all the common employee types in a hotel; however,

the 2 most common job descriptions encountered were room attendant (45.8%) and guest

service agent (30.0%).

123

Table 7. Respondents’ Followership Profile and Style

Table 7 describes the univariate results of the survey data for the followership

characteristics. To arrive at these results, respondents completed The Follower Profile

(Dixon, 2003) questionnaire with 60 questions and The Followership Questionnaire

(Kelley, 1992) with 20 questions. The average scores with the associated standard

deviations as well as the minimum and maximum scores are presented. With respect to

courageous follower attributes, the mean score for most attributes appears to be closer to

the maximum than to the minimum which indicates that respondents had the courage to

assume responsibility, serve, challenge, participate in transformation, and leave (take

moral action). On average, the scores of the two components, which are used to classify

followership style, showed that there was more of a trend among participants to show

active engagement (mean 45.77, max 60) than independent thinking (mean 35.22, max

Characteristic

The FollowerProfile (Courage to:) Minimum Maximum Mean St. Dev.

Assume responsibility 63 117 99.34 11.18 Serve 22 60 48.18 7.79 Challenge 16 41 33.72 4.95 Participate in Transformation 22 42 35.93 4.03 Leave (Take Moral Action) 40 72 59.22 6.19

The Followership Style

Components: Minimum Maximum Mean St. Dev.

Independent thinking 11.00 60.00 35.22 10.55

Active engagement 21.00 60.00 45.77 9.09 Classification: N %

Exemplary 79 65.8

Pragmatic 18 15.0

Conformist 14 11.7

Alienated 0 0.0

Passive 8 6.7

Unclassified 1 0.8

124

60). When the specific active engagement and independent thinking scores for each

respondents were observed as combinations and compared to established definition (as

described in chapter 3), nearly two-thirds of respondents were exemplary followers

(65.8%). Much less frequent were the pragmatic (15.0%) and conformist followers

(11.7%). Passive followers were few (6.7%) and no respondents were classified as

alienated followers. One respondent’s scores were not able to be scored and therefore

were eliminated from further analyses.

Table 8. Job Satisfaction Survey Responses

Characteristic Minimum Maximum Mean St. Dev. Pay -5 7 1.18 2.11 Promotion -1 15 7.93 3.57 Supervision -3 6 0.68 1.74 Fringe Benefits -5 8 1.39 2.26 Contingent Rewards -17 0 -7.58 3.23 Operating Conditions -17 1 -8.21 3.15 Co-workers -5 8 1.84 2.14 Nature of work 4 15 10.64 1.95 Communications -14 -2 -8.48 2.46

Table 8 shows the results of the job satisfaction average scores. There was a wide

distribution of answers for the different aspects of job satisfaction. However, several

aspects of satisfaction were more evident than others. Respondents appeared to be more

satisfied with promotion and the nature of the work (as indicated by mostly positive

descriptive statistics) and dissatisfied with the contingent rewards, operating conditions

and communications (as indicated by mostly negative descriptive statistics).

125

Section 2: Hypotheses Testing

Having highlighted the characteristics of the study sample, the researcher turns to

answer the questions posed in this thesis and to test the hypotheses. These hypotheses

have been divided into 2 phases and addressed using several statistical tests.


Are TFP measured indicators of followership behavior the same for all followership

styles of hotel customer-contact employees?

Phase 1 Research Hypotheses Tested












Hypotheses Testing Results

Table 9 shows the results of the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test. This statistic

tests the hypothesis that the medians for the different followership behaviors are equal for

126

different followership styles. The mean ranks of followership styles for each of these

followership behaviors appear at first glance to be very different. This is reinforced by

the p-values of the Kruskal-Wallis test that are shown at the far right column, which were

all less than 0.05 or highly statistically significant.

Based on the statistical test’s findings, the null hypothesis is rejected and the

alternative hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9. Results of the Kruskal-Wallis Test

Characteristic Followership style Mean Rank Chi-Square

Df p-value

Assume responsibility

Exemplary 71.75

28.77 3 0.000 Pragmatic 36.38

Conformist 43.40

Passive 25.25

Serve

Exemplary 68.82

17.15 3 0.001 Pragmatic 41.32

Conformist 50.30

Passive 30.75

Challenge

Exemplary 70.10

22.58 3 0.000 Pragmatic 30.56

Conformist 46.40

Passive 28.31

Participate in Transformation

Exemplary 70.99

31.00 3 0.000 Pragmatic 27.53

Conformist 56.87

Passive 26.38

Leave (Take Moral Action)

Exemplary 70.72

25.04 3 0.000 Pragmatic 35.74

Conformist 48.60

Passive 27.13

127




satisfaction?

Phase 2 Research Hypotheses Tested

Hypotheses Tested Using Multiple Analysis of Co-variance (MANCOVA)

Null Hypothesis predicts that demographic data as control variables (DDV) will not

interact with hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction variables.



Hypothesis Testing Results

Table 10. MANCOVA Multivariate Tests(c)

Effect Value F Hypothesis

df Error df Sig. Intercept

Pillai's Trace .865 64.860(a) 9.000 91.000 .000 Wilks' Lambda .135 64.860(a) 9.000 91.000 .000 Hotelling's Trace 6.415 64.860(a) 9.000 91.000 .000 Roy's Largest Root 6.415 64.860(a) 9.000 91.000 .000

Followership style

Pillai's Trace .204 .754 27.000 279.000 .809 Wilks' Lambda .808 .748 27.000 266.409 .815 Hotelling's Trace .223 .742 27.000 269.000 .822 Roy's Largest Root .115 1.185(b) 9.000 93.000 .314

Gender

Pillai's Trace .104 1.177(a) 9.000 91.000 .319 Wilks' Lambda .896 1.177(a) 9.000 91.000 .319 Hotelling's Trace .116 1.177(a) 9.000 91.000 .319 Roy's Largest Root .116 1.177(a) 9.000 91.000 .319

Age

Pillai's Trace .393 1.139 36.000 376.000 .272 Wilks' Lambda .652 1.153 36.000 342.756 .258 Hotelling's Trace .468 1.164 36.000 358.000 .244 Roy's Largest Root .262 2.741(b) 9.000 94.000 .007

128

Table 10. MANCOVA Multivariate Tests(c) Continued

Education


Job Description


a Exact statistic b The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level. c Design: Intercept+follower_type+D1+D2+D3+D4 Table 11. MANCOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Source Dependent Variable

Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model Pay 63.252(a) 19 3.329 .711 .799 Promotion 286.338(b) 19 15.070 1.220 .257 Supervision 31.873(c) 19 1.678 .504 .955 Fringe Benefits 107.731(d) 19 5.670 1.134 .331 Contingent

Rewards 274.510(e) 19 14.448 1.483 .108

Operating Conditions

284.759(f) 19 14.987 1.659 .057

Co-workers 89.857(g) 19 4.729 1.034 .430 Nature of work 109.097(h) 19 5.742 1.706 .047 Communications 201.376(i) 19 10.599 2.025 .013 Intercept Pay 1.041 1 1.041 .222 .638 Promotion 926.915 1 926.915 75.043 .000 Supervision .975 1 .975 .293 .590 Fringe Benefits 6.398 1 6.398 1.279 .261 Contingent

Rewards 1055.397 1 1055.397 108.332 .000


478.830 1 478.830 53.001 .000

Co-workers 12.916 1 12.916 2.824 .096 Nature of work 1274.661 1 1274.661 378.815 .000 Communications 726.819 1 726.819 138.837 .000

129

Table 11. MANCOVA Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Continued

Followership style Pay 16.168 3 5.389 1.151 .332 Promotion 28.797 3 9.599 .777 .509 Supervision 7.276 3 2.425 .728 .537 Fringe Benefits 12.611 3 4.204 .841 .475 Contingent

Rewards 19.778 3 6.593 .677 .568


14.853 3 4.951 .548 .651

Co-workers 15.508 3 5.169 1.130 .341 Nature of work 31.910 3 10.637 3.161 .028 Communications 9.436 3 3.145 .601 .616 Gender Pay 4.202 1 4.202 .898 .346 Promotion 35.038 1 35.038 2.837 .095 Supervision 1.297 1 1.297 .390 .534 Fringe Benefits .977 1 .977 .195 .659 Contingent

Rewards 7.179 1 7.179 .737 .393


8.746 1 8.746 .968 .328

Co-workers .195 1 .195 .043 .837 Nature of work 6.113 1 6.113 1.817 .181 Communications 3.250 1 3.250 .621 .433 Age Pay 17.988 4 4.497 .961 .433 Promotion 83.952 4 20.988 1.699 .156 Supervision 5.666 4 1.417 .425 .790 Fringe Benefits 24.075 4 6.019 1.204 .314 Contingent

Rewards 77.619 4 19.405 1.992 .102


26.934 4 6.733 .745 .563

Co-workers 34.037 4 8.509 1.861 .123 Nature of work 20.313 4 5.078 1.509 .205 Communications 66.132 4 16.533 3.158 .017 Education Pay 13.066 4 3.267 .698 .595 Promotion 29.682 4 7.421 .601 .663 Supervision .775 4 .194 .058 .994 Fringe Benefits 9.200 4 2.300 .460 .765 Contingent

Rewards 62.296 4 15.574 1.599 .181


35.252 4 8.813 .976 .425

Co-workers 14.008 4 3.502 .766 .550 Nature of work 18.160 4 4.540 1.349 .257 Communications 66.776 4 16.694 3.189 .016

130


Job Description Pay 15.107 7 2.158 .461 .860 Promotion 87.030 7 12.433 1.007 .431 Supervision 21.344 7 3.049 .916 .498 Fringe Benefits 76.685 7 10.955 2.191 .041 Contingent

Rewards 85.914 7 12.273 1.260 .278


181.035 7 25.862 2.863 .009

Co-workers 23.310 7 3.330 .728 .648 Nature of work 17.761 7 2.537 .754 .627 Communications 42.215 7 6.031 1.152 .337 Error Pay 463.386 99 4.681 Promotion 1222.822 99 12.352 Supervision 329.623 99 3.330 Fringe Benefits 495.093 99 5.001 Contingent

Rewards 964.482 99 9.742


894.401 99 9.034

Co-workers 452.715 99 4.573 Nature of work 333.122 99 3.365 Communications 518.271 99 5.235 Total Pay 689.000 119 Promotion 8966.000 119 Supervision 418.000 119 Fringe Benefits 840.000 119 Contingent

Rewards 8076.000 119


9184.000 119

Co-workers 953.000 119 Nature of work 13847.000 119 Communications 9258.000 119 Corrected Total Pay 526.639 118 Promotion 1509.160 118 Supervision 361.496 118 Fringe Benefits 602.824 118 Contingent

Rewards 1238.992 118


1179.160 118

Co-workers 542.571 118 Nature of work 442.218 118 Communications 719.647 118

131


a R Squared = .120 (Adjusted R Squared = -.049) b R Squared = .190 (Adjusted R Squared = .034) c R Squared = .088 (Adjusted R Squared = -.087) d R Squared = .179 (Adjusted R Squared = .021) e R Squared = .222 (Adjusted R Squared = .072) f R Squared = .241 (Adjusted R Squared = .096) g R Squared = .166 (Adjusted R Squared = .005) h R Squared = .247 (Adjusted R Squared = .102) i R Squared = .280 (Adjusted R Squared = .142) Hypothesis 2 was tested using the multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)

with demographic data as control variables. The results are displayed in Tables 5 and 6.

Table 5 displays the main effects of each of the independent variables. As evidenced by

the significance, none of the variables had an effect on job satisfaction, including

followership style Table 11 provides a more detailed description of the relationship

between followership style and each facet of job satisfaction. The corrected model, which

is a measure of the meaningfulness of the model, was significant only in the case of

studying the effect on satisfaction with the nature of work and with communication.

Drilling further down in the table shows that followership style had a significant effect on

satisfaction with the nature of work. Demographics also had a significant relationship

with some of the facets of job satisfaction. Both age and education had an effect on

satisfaction with communication; job description had an effect on satisfaction with fringe

benefits and operating conditions.

Table 12 depicts a section from the pair-wise comparisons table that compares the

mean values of satisfaction with the nature of the work for different followership styles.

Most of the significant differences were between the passive followership style and the

other followership styles.

132

Table 12. MANCOVA Pair-wise Comparisons

Based on estimated marginal means * The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments). Hypotheses Tested Using Correlation Analysis

Hypothesis 4 could not be tested because none of the respondents to the survey

attained scores which classify them as having an alienated followership type. For the

remaining hypotheses, Table 8 provides the correlation analyses results.







Dependent Variable

(I) follower type

(J) follower type

Mean Difference

(I-J) Std. Error Sig.(a)

95% Confidence Interval for

Difference(a)

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Upper Bound

Lower Bound

Nature of work Exemplary

Pragmatic .796 .496 .112 -.189 1.781 Conformist .279 .561 .619 -.833 1.392 Passive 2.083(*) .736 .006 .623 3.543

Pragmatic

Exemplary -.796 .496 .112 -1.781 .189 Conformist -.516 .672 .444 -1.850 .817 Passive 1.287 .826 .122 -.351 2.926

Conformist Exemplary -.279 .561 .619 -1.392 .833

Pragmatic .516 .672 .444 -.817 1.850 Passive 1.804(*) .860 .038 .098 3.509

Passive Exemplary -2.083(*) .736 .006 -3.543 -.623

Pragmatic -1.287 .826 .122 -2.926 .351 Conformist -1.804(*) .860 .038 -3.509 -.098

133



Null Hypothesis 4: There is no correlation between alienated followership style hotel












Hypothesis Testing Results

Table 13. Correlations Analysis Results

Exemplary Pragmatic Conformist Passive Pay 0.13 -0.04 -0.09 -0.09 Promotion 0.15 -0.07 -0.05 -0.11 Supervision 0.06 -0.05 -0.08 0.05 Fringe Benefits 0.07 0.05 -0.14 0.01 Contingent Rewards 0.02 0.04 -0.11 0.01 Operating Conditions 0.01 0.03 -0.09 0.04 Co-workers 0.14 -0.01 -0.13 -0.01 Nature of work 0.18* -0.01 0.00 -0.31* Communications -0.03 0.01 0.14 -0.07

134

The correlations analysis, as shown in Table 13, confirms the \results from the

MANCOVA, which indicates statistically non-significant relationship between job

satisfaction and the followership styles except in the case of nature of work. Thus the null

hypothesis is not rejected in all of hypotheses 2 thru 6 except in the case of satisfaction

with the nature of work.

Section 3: Conclusion

In this chapter, descriptive statistics of the surveyed sample and testing of the

hypotheses were conducted. The surveyed sample can be described as mostly females

working as room attendants and guest service agents. They are mostly exemplary in their

followership style and none is alienated. Hypotheses testing showed that followership

behaviors significantly differ by followership styles but not satisfaction, which is affected

by followership style only in its aspect - the satisfaction with the nature of work.

Demographic variables appear to have a more profound impact on satisfaction, but not in

all facets.

135

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS

Research Overview

This study tested the hypothesis that hotel customer-contact employees who

perceive they are exemplary or star followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) will exhibit greater

level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) and display greater levels of job

satisfaction (Spector, 1997) than those employees who perceive themselves to be passive

followers (sheep), conformist followers (yes-people), alienated followers or, pragmatic

followers (Pragmatist) (Kelley, 1992, 2008).

The independent variables of exemplary followership, pragmatic followership,

alienated followership, conformist followership and passive followership (Kelley, 1992)

as measured by the Followership Questionnaire (TFQ)) was compared with the

dependent variables of five followership behaviors: (a) courage to assume responsibility,

(b) courage to serve, (c) courage to challenge, (d) courage to participate in

transformation, and (e) courage to leave as measured by The Follower Profile (TFP;

Dixon, 2003) to determine population distribution differences.

In the second part of the study statistical analysis, the independent variables of

exemplary followership style, pragmatic followership style, alienated followership style,

conformist followership style and passive followership style (Kelley, 1992), as measured

by The Followership Questionnaire (TFQ), was compared with ten dependent variables

of job satisfaction as measured by the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; Spector, 1997) to

determine any correlations, Pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent

rewards, operating conditions, co-workers, nature of work and communications.

136

Research Questions

The study examined two questions. (a) are The Follower Profile (TFP; Dixon,

2003) measured indicators of followership behavior the same for all followership styles

of hotel customer-contact employees; and (b) what is the correlation between exemplary,

pragmatic, alienated, conformist and passive followership styles hotel first line customer-

contact employees job satisfaction?

Hypotheses Tested

The study tested a total of 16 hypotheses to address the research questions as

outlined below.

Phase 1: Research Question

What is the correlation between exemplary, pragmatic, alienated, conformist, and


satisfaction?









transformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for Exemplary versus

137

Pragmatic versus Alienated versus Conformist versus Passive followership styles of hotel





satisfaction?

Hypotheses tested using correlation and multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)

MANCOVA Analysis: DDV= demographic data as control variables





Hypotheses Tested Using Correlation Analysis

Hypothesis 4 was not tested as there were no alienated followers in the tested population.









138









Setting and Sample

Setting

The study was conducted at the eleven locations of a small luxury hotel and resort

chain located throughout the Columbia Basin and Canadian Rockies in central British

Columbia. The hotel and resort chain has 190 employees of which 142 are classified as

customer-contact employees who would serve as the target population. One hundred-

twenty employees volunteered to participate in the study after having signed an Implied

Consent Form.

While obtaining a stratified random sample of one shift of employees creating a

homogenous sub-population, could have been accomplished, the small size of the target

population would have resulted in having a sample population of insufficient size without

sufficient statistical power thus significantly increasing the possibility of Type II errors.

To avoid this possibility, the total customer-contact employee population was selected as

139

participants and an on-site group administration of the survey instruments was used to

maximize the number of respondents (Fowler, 2003; Yang, 2005).

The hotel and resort chain caters to business and conferences in the larger cites

and primarily to tourists in their other locations. Because of the small numbers of

employees, the hotel chain relies on a team approach with employees in leadership

positions engaged in multiple line duties such as guest registration and in some cases

concierge in addition to their management responsibilities.

Demographics

The following demographics of the target population were examined and used as

control variables: gender, age, education and job description. Thirty-three men and 87

women participated in the study or 27.5% and 72.5% of the target population

respectively. The age of the participants ranged from 16 to 55 and older. Forty-three

participants in the age range of 31-44 years, or 35.8%, formed the largest block of

participants, whereas the 15 participants in the age range of 55 and older, or 10.8%,

formed the smallest block of participants. In the education demographic, 108 participants,

or 90%, were nearly evenly divided between being high school graduates, having some

college, or being college graduates. Customer-contact employees within the hotel-resort

chain fell into eight categories: Guest Services Agent, Room Attendant, Bellman, Night

Auditor, Catering Coordinator, Guest Services Manager, Assistant Manager, and

Corporate Office Staff. It was noted that these designations may not be the same ones

used in a hotel chain in the United States such as Room Attendant, where the designation

of Housekeeping would be used or Bellman, regardless of the employee’s gender, where

the gender neutral designation of bellhop would be used. Thirty-six Guest Services

140

Agents and 55 Room Attendants formed the largest block of research participants

comprising 30% and 55% of the study participants respectively with 1 Bellman and 1

Assistant Manager comprising the smallest number of study participants, with

percentages of 0.8% each.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

Data was collected using three survey instruments (Appendices A, B, and C) with

using on-site group administration. All survey instruments were modified, used and

reproduced with written permission of the authors. Each group was provided a

presentation on the nature of the research, the importance of the research to them and

their organization, research confidentiality and anonymity of the respondents, and ethical

considerations. After reading and signing the Implied Consent form they were handed a

survey packet in the following order, The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003) that measured

courageous follower behavior, and contained the four questions that collected the

demographic data. As the original survey contained some euphemisms that would be

familiar to an American audience, several questions were changed in order to reduce the

possibility of misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the respondents. It was noted that

many of the room attendant staff were from the Philippines and one room attendant was

from Quebec and spoke French as her primary language.

While the English speaking skills of these participants were quite good, there

were still some issues that required clarification by the researcher for some of the

questions. This instrument contained a total of 60 questions. The Followership

Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) was composed of 20 questions. Questions 1, 5, 11, 12, 14,

141

16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 questions measured the level of active engagement and questions 2,

3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 and 15 measured the level of independent critical thinking, which a

combination of scores of both constructs formed the respondent’s followership style.

Respondent followership style was measured using the criteria in Table 14, based on the

analysis of the scoring grid illustrated in Figure 7.

Table 14. Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire

Scoring Criteria

1. Exemplary Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 31 to 60 and Active Engagement Scores of 41 to 60 2. Pragmatist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 20 to 40 and Active Engagement Scores of 20 to 40 3. Conformist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 0 to 30 and Active Engagement Scores of 41 to 60 4. Alienated Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 31 to 60 and Active Engagement Scores of 0 to 19 5. Passive Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 0 to 30 and Active Engagement Scores of 0 to 19

As the data collected from this instrument formed a major portion of the data

analysis, clarification of responses was essential. To facilitate the following survey key

was provided in Table 15:

Table 15. Survey Key-The Followership Questionnaire

Survey Key 0 = Never- Never is defined as zero (0) percent of the time. 1 = Once in a While- Once in a while is defined as 1-29 percent of the time. 2 = Sometimes- Sometimes is defined as 30-59 percent of the time. 3 = Occasionally- Occasionally is defined as 60-79 percent of the time. 4 = Often- Often is defined as 80-89 percent of the time.

142

Table 15. Survey Key-The Followership Questionnaire Continued

5 = Almost Always- Almost Always is defined as 90-99 percent of the time. 6 = Always- Always is defined as 100 percent of the time The final instrument in the packet was the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector,

1997). As this instrument has been used quite successfully, in both the domestic and

international research environments, no change in instrument wording was necessary.

However, since approximately half of the 36 questions are negatively worded, a survey

key Table (16) was provided to the respondents to incorporate the reverse scoring of their

responses during the data collection phase in order to facilitate data analysis.

Table 16. Survey Key-Job Satisfaction Survey

Survey Key Positively Worded Questions Negatively Worded Questions 1 = Disagree Very Much 6 = Disagree Very Much 2 = Disagree Moderately 5 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Disagree Slightly 4 =Agree Slightly 3 =Agree Slightly 5 =Agree Moderately 2 =Agree Moderately 6 =Agree Very Much 1 =Agree Very Much

Discussion of Findings The analysis of the data centered on separate statistical operations for each of the

research questions and associated hypotheses and a univariate analysis of the sample with

respect to followership style, courageous follower attributes and job satisfaction.

143

Univariate Analysis of the Sample The univariate results of the survey data for the followership characteristics and

courageous follower behavioral attributes were determined based upon analysis of results

obtained from the respondent completion of The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003)

questionnaire and The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). The findings from the

analysis of The Follower Profile data revealed that the mean score for most courageous

follower attributes appears to be closer to the maximum , for example 117 for courage to

assume responsibility than to the minimum of 63 for the same attribute. These findings

displayed the same statistical characteristics across the spectrum for all courageous

follower behavioral attributes, thus indicating that all the respondents displayed the

characteristics of courage to assume responsibility, serve, challenge, participate in

transformation, and leave (take moral action).

On average, the scores of the two components, which are used to classify

followership style, showed that there was more of a trend among participants to show

active engagement (mean 45.77, max 60) than independent thinking (mean 35.22, max

60) based upon these means scores, the findings seem to indicate that the average

employee at the hotel and resort chain would tend to report themselves as an exemplary

follower. This conclusion is borne out by the data.

The observations of the specific active engagement and independent thinking

scores that were combined and compared for each respondent for each respondents were

observed based upon the definition, in chapter 3 and illustrated in Table 14 revealed that

65.8%, or 79, respondents reported themselves as exemplary followers, a majority of the

target population. Whereas, 15.0%, or 18 respondents, reported themselves as pragmatic

144

followers, followed by 11.7%, or 14 respondents, that reported themselves as conformist

followers. Only 6.7%, or 8 respondents, identified themselves passive followers. One

respondents survey was unable to be scored and was not included in the univariate

analysis. It was interesting to observe that no respondents identified themselves as

alienated followers. The findings suggest these is a somewhat positive, organizational

climate and culture that show some vestiges of an effective teamwork environment

The data indicated a large variation in the responses for the varying aspects of job

satisfaction. However, several aspects of satisfaction were more evident than others.

Respondents appeared to be more satisfied with promotion and the nature of the work (as

indicated by mostly positive descriptive statistics of 15 each) and dissatisfied with the

contingent rewards, operating conditions and communications (as indicated by mostly

negative descriptive statistics of -17, -17 and -14 respectively). These findings suggests

that the organization does a relatively good job in rewarding employees with promotion,

(extrinsic job satisfaction) and most employees appear satisfied with the nature of their

work (intrinsic job satisfaction). However, there appears to be major organizational issues

with organizational communication which had a maximum score of -2 and minimum

score of -14 (intrinsic job satisfaction) and a perceived unhappiness in the operating

conditions for their work as indicated by a maximum score of 1 and minimum score of -

17). It must be noted that the researcher stayed at four of the locations, which are all

high-end luxury hotels or resorts. The surveys were administered in conference rooms,

empty hotel suites, and in one case, a large combination laundry and break area. The

nature of this study did not include the specific definition of operating conditions

(extrinsic job satisfaction) or active observations of employees in their operating

145

environment, thus no conclusion can be drawn as to why the hotel chain employees are

not satisfied with their operating conditions which could include working hours,

facilities, resources made available to do their work, organizational leadership and

customer interactions.

However, in examining the findings from the univariate analysis of the data from

The Follower Profile and The Followership Questionnaire together with the job

satisfaction data, the data suggest that the average customer-contact employee from this

hotel chain is an exemplary follower who displays all of the courageous follower

attributes, but is very dissatisfied with level of organizational communication and

organizational operating conditions, but are happy with the nature of their work and has a

moderate level of satisfaction on how promotions are handled within the organization.

Conclusions of Hypotheses Testing and Evaluation The hypotheses tested in this research were divided into 2 phases and addressed

using several statistical tests.


Are TFP measured indicators of followership behavior the same for all

followership styles of hotel customer-contact employees?




transformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for Exemplary versus

146

Pragmatic versus Alienated versus conformist versus passive followership styles of hotel







Conclusions of Findings

The non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test hypothesis that the

medians for the different courageous follower behavioral attributes behaviors are equal

for different followership styles. The mean ranks of followership styles for each of the

courageous followers upon examination appeared to be very different but were highly

statistically significant based upon their p-values being less than .05. For example, for the

courageous follower behavior of courage to assume responsibility, exemplary

followership style had a mean rank of 71.75 with a p-value of 0.00. Across all other

courageous follower attributes, this followership style had mean ranks of 68.82, 70.10,

70.99 and 70.72 with all p-values being 0.00; pragmatic follower style had a mean rank

of 36.38 with a p-value of 0.00. Across all other courageous follower attributes, this

followership style had mean ranks of 41.32, 30.56, 27.56 and 48.60 with all p-values

being 0.00; conformist followership style had a mean rank of 43.40 with a p-value of

0.00. Across all other courageous follower attributes, this followership style had mean

ranks of 50.36, 46.40, 56.87 and 70.72 with all p-values being 0.00 and the passive

followership style had a mean rank of 25.25 with a p-value of 0.00. Across all other

147

courageous follower attributes, this followership style had mean ranks of 30.75, 28.31,

26.38 and 27.13 with all p-values being 0.00. Based on the statistical test’s findings, the

null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.

These findings suggest that the respondents all displayed some level of all of the

courageous follower behavioral attributes. However, exemplary followers tended to

display more of the courageous follower attributes than the other followership styles.

This finding suggests that pragmatic followers tend to assume responsibility only when it

was to their benefit; this was reflected in their score. This pattern of apparent fence sitting

appeared evident in the median rank scores for the other behavioral attributes which

ranked below that of conformist followers, but higher than passive followers. It was

interesting to note that conformist followers scored above 50 in the courageous follower

attributes of courage to participate in transformation and courage to serve with scores of

56.87 and 50.30 respectively, suggesting that active engagement in these activities are

relatively high, but rating much lower on the scores for critical independent thinking than

their exemplary follower co-workers.

In the courageous follower attributes of courage to challenge, and courage to

leave (take moral action), the data suggest that the conformist follower respondents did

not completely accept everything they were either told or had to do and had some

willingness to question authority and if pushed would take some form of moral action or

leave the organization, but not to the same extent as their exemplary follower co-workers.

The findings also suggest that conformist followers had a greater tendency to display the

behavioral aspects of all the courageous follower attributes than either the pragmatists or

148

passive followers. As expected, the passive followers scored much lower in all categories

of courageous follower attributes than the other followership styles.




satisfaction?

Hypotheses tested using Multiple Analysis of Co-variance (MANCOVA)





Findings of MANCOVA Analysis

Hypothesis 2 was tested using the multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)

with demographic data as control variables. In multivariate tests, the data indicated that

the main effects of each of the independent variables resulted in no effects of the

variables, including followership style had an effect on job satisfaction, including

followership style. However, there were some facets of job satisfaction that were

influenced by demographics. Data from the test between subject effects provided a more

detailed description of the statistical relationship between followership style and all facets

of job satisfaction. These findings suggest that exemplary, pragmatic and conformist

followers were significantly more satisfied with the nature of work than their passive

follower co-workers. The analysis of the data indicates that the null hypothesis is partially

rejected and the alternative hypothesis is partially accepted.

149

The corrected model measured the meaningfulness of the model, was significant

only in analyzing the effect on satisfaction with the nature of work and with

communication. The data from the corrected model also demonstrated that followership

style had a significant effect on satisfaction with the nature of work. While demographics

did not significantly affect all facets of job satisfaction, the control variables of age and

education had an effect on satisfaction with communication and job description had an

effect on satisfaction with fringe benefits and operating conditions.

In the pair-wise comparisons compared the mean values of satisfaction with the

nature of the work as the dependent variable for different followership styles. The most

significant differences observed were between the passive followership style and the

other followership styles with the mean differences between exemplary and passive styles

being 2.083, passive and pragmatic styles being 1.287 and conformist and passive styles

being 1.804. The pair wise comparison with passive styles and exemplary, pragmatic and

conformist styles were -2.083, -1.286 and -1.804 respectively.

Findings of Correlation Analysis and Hypotheses Tested

Hypothesis 4 was not tested because none of the respondents to The Followership

Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) had scores that would classify them as alienated followers.

The following hypotheses were tested for the other followership styles:





150





Null Hypothesis 4: There is no correlation between alienated followership style and hotel










Alternate Hypothesis 6: There is a correlation between passive followership style and


The correlations analysis of the six hypotheses confirmed the results from the

MANCOVA that indicated the relationship between job satisfaction and the followership

styles except in the case of nature of work is statistically non-significant. As a result, the

null hypothesis is not rejected in all of hypotheses 2 thru 6 except in the case of the job

satisfaction facet of nature of work which showed a slightly positive correlation of 0.18

for the exemplary followership style and a negative correlation of -0.31 for the passive

followership style. These findings suggest that followership style is not a major factor in

151

an employees’ extrinsic or intrinsic job satisfaction. But the nature of work appears to be

a slightly positive satisfier for exemplary followers and a slightly negative satisfier for

passive followers. The key thing to note is that these findings also suggest that the

exemplary follower is more likely to verbalize their satisfaction or dissatisfaction,

whereas the passive follower would keep their perceptions to themselves.

In summary, the target population of the surveyed sample can be characterized as

mostly female who are either guest services agents or room attendants. Approximately

two thirds of the surveyed sample reports themselves to be exemplary followers, and no

respondents reported themselves to be alienated followers. Hypotheses testing revealed

that showed that showed that courageous follower behaviors significantly differ by

followership styles but not job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is affected by followership

style only in the facet of the nature of work. Demographic variables appear to have a

more profound impact on some but not all facets of job satisfaction. In essence the data

suggest that customer-contact employee job satisfaction is more of a personal perception

of how extrinsic and intrinsic job satisfaction facets affect them personally regardless of

followership style and their followership style is a manifestation of their attitudes and

relationship to their colleagues, leadership and level of organizational commitment.

Limitations of the Study

In chapter 1, several limitations to the study were listed. These limitations were

sample size, selection of respondents, demonstrated validity of the data instruments, and

threats to internal validity including possible selection-maturation interaction and

selection (Ohlund & Yu, 1999) due to the respondents for the followership and employee

152

satisfaction instruments will come from the same work areas. While the sample size was

relatively small, the entire target population was selected and given the opportunity to

participate in the study, versus using a stratified random sample that lacked sufficient

statistical power. This step along with using instruments with demonstrated statistical

validity and reliability addressed the above limitations.

The cultural background of the customer-contact employees remained a

limitation. The setting was an international one with many of the respondents being from

the Philippines or are native Canadians. While Canada is closely aligned culturally to the

United States, there are some differences. These differences could have manifested itself

in the way the participants responded to The Follower Profile and The Followership

Questionnaire. Hofstede (1980), in his research, addressed how the differences in national

cultures have a profound effect on the way employees perceive management practices

and how American management theory or in this case followership theory is applied and

examined. Nationality was not a demographic variable and a statistical analysis could

have been conducted to determine if there was any influence on the variables of

courageous follower behavior or followership style. Because this was in an international

environment, the findings of the study may not be generalized to other populations or

even customer–contact employee populations in hotels located in the United States

Although there was not widespread use of The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003)and

The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley) instruments involved in this study, (instrument

validity and reliability notwithstanding), like the Pratt (2004) study, the risk of hidden

tautologies in the tested hypotheses, the modifications to the instruments and simplified

153

straightforward analysis processes and clear identification of the variables ensured there

was no meaningless correlational analysis due to variable ambiguity and complexity.

Another limitation was the use of zeros in the scoring of The Followership

Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). While the use of zero provided a more meaningful score in

calculating followership style, it created problems in examining the constructs of

independent critical thinking and active engagement separately. One solution would be to

use a 7-point Likert scale number 1 to 7 versus 0 to 6, modify the scoring criteria for each

followership style according and still be in a position to have valid numbers to establish

statistical relationships between independent and dependent variables.

The self-reporting aspects of The Followership Questionnaire and The Follower

Profile remained a significant limitation to the study. Due to the high numbers of

respondents who self-reported as exemplary followers and that each reported

followership style demonstrated courageous follower behaviors to some varying degree

demonstrated that respondents answered questions in way where they perceive they are in

a more favorable light creating possible over reporting as exemplary followers for

example.

Further, as the data was gathered at one session at each location versus data being

gathered over time in a longitudinal study, the stability of the observed empirical

relationships cannot be firmly concluded as a replication of the study at the same

locations may reveal entirely different results.

154

Implications for Future Research

The results of this study and the limitations that were previously listed offer

several opportunities for future research. One possibility is replicating the study at four or

five geographically dispersed locations of a major luxury hotel chain in the United States

using a stratified random sample of all customer-contact employee s of one shift, using

on-site group administration for data collection. Demographic data collected would

include nationality of the respondents to determine the effect of this variable on job

satisfaction. A comparative analysis could then be conducted with the findings of this

study to determine differences in results and conclusions. The second possibility of future

research is to examine the influence of demographics to include nationality on

followership style and the level of courageous follower attributes with demographics

being the independent variables and followership style and courageous follower attributes

being dependent variables. This type of study could be conducted in a variety of settings

and populations and not limited to using hotel customer-contact employees.

The third possibility for future research is to examine the influence of

demographics to include nationality on the level of the followership style constructs of

independent critical thinking and active engagement, with demographics being the

independent variables and independent critical thinking and active engagement being the

dependent variables.

The fourth possibility is to replicate the other possibilities to include this study in

a variety of international environments to determine the influence of different

nationalities in their home environment have on followership style, courageous follower

attributes and customer-contact employee job satisfaction. In all of these future research

155

possibilities, The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) would have to further

modified and scoring for the five followership styles changed as depicted in Table 17 in

order to ensure a valid statistical relationship between variables, where the use of the

number zero in a response would create difficulty in data analysis and the determination

of statistical relationships between variables.

Table 17. Revised Survey Key and Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire

Survey Key

1= Never - Never is defined as zero (0) percent of the time. 2 = Once in a While - Once in a while is defined as 1-29 percent of the time. 3 = Sometimes - Sometimes is defined as 30-59 percent of the time. 4 = Occasionally - Occasionally is defined as 60-79 percent of the time. 5 =Often - Often is defined as 80-89 percent of the time. 6 =Almost Always - Almost Always is defined as 90-99 percent of the time. 7 =Always - Always is defined as 100 percent of the time

Scoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire

1. Exemplary Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 42 to 70 and Active Engagement Scores of 51 to 70 2. Pragmatist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 30 to 50 and Active Engagement Scores of 30 to 50 3. Conformist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 10 to 40 and Active Engagement Scores of 51 to 70 4. Alienated Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 41 to 70 and Active Engagement Scores of 10 to 29 5. Passive Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 10 to 40 and Active Engagement Scores of 10 to 29

A fifth possibility for future research centers around the examination of the

influence of affective and cognitive components of followership (Lord, 2008) on the level

of organizational commitment Townsend & Gebhardt, 2003). A final possibility would

156

be a variation of the fourth, where a correlational study could be conducted to determine

how followership style influences the level of organizational commitment, where

followership style is the independent variable and organizational commitment is the

dependent variable.

Recommendations for Practice

Through the years, American leadership and management theory has centered on

power relationships, some form of hierarchal power structure and the role of leadership

influence in the relationships between the lead rand the led Emerson, 1962: Veragunas,

1989). The more recent forms of leadership styles such as transformational leadership

and servant leadership have embraced the concept of power sharing, risk sharing and

follower development (Bass & Bass, 2008, Bass & Riggio, 2006; Greenleaf, 1977; Spears

& Lawrence, 2002). Organizational leadership either through training or education have

wedded themselves to the concept that leaders lead and followers are dependent and have

little or no influence in their organizations. The concept of followership and the

identification of followership styles and internal organizational power structures based

upon the influence of followers are relatively new paradigms (Chaleff, 2003, 2008;

Kelley, 1992, 2008; Lord, 2008) and viewing followership as an influencing factor

separate from leadership is also relatively a new research paradigm, (Chaleff, 2008,

Kelley, 2008).

In order to influence organizational leaders to see followership as a valid and

important paradigm, a followership curriculum would need to be developed and taught in

business schools and organizational training sessions as something that is not a negative

157

concept, but is a positive partner to leadership. These courses and training sessions could

be based on the successful workshops conducted by Ira Chaleff and Dr. Eugene Dixon.

This effort could be made more effective by using the principles of critical reflection as

outlined by Brookfield (1995), where the leader becomes a coach, mentor and power

sharer, while knowing and understanding the needs and value of the followers. The glide

path for leaders would be to combine the principles of transformational leadership to not

only facilitate followers to be transformational leaders and exemplary followers, but for

the leaders to learn how to become exemplary followers themselves through the critical

reflective process.

To initiate this learning in organizations, a change management process would

have to be instituted, as most people still view followership in a negative light and buy-in

to this paradigm will be essential. The first step is to conduct an organizational culture

survey in conjunction with a job satisfaction and organizational communication survey.

The results of these surveys will provide valuable information of where the problem areas

are that will create road blocks in bringing out the necessary change and behavior

modification required at all levels of the organization in order to make this effort

successful. A key point to remember is that both exemplary followership and

transformational leadership have a strong moral component and an outward selfless focus

to serve others rather than self and working toward a common organizational purpose. As

this type of organizational change will not be an overnight process, it is recommended

that organizations have regular employee town hall style meetings where the principles of

critical reflection are used to obtain feedback to determine whether organizational

158

learning and acceptance of followership is taking place and action plans can be developed

and followed up on to remedy shortcomings in the process.

Conclusion

This study provided an in-depth view of how followership style and courageous

follower attributes influences job satisfaction from the viewpoint of the follower on hotel

customer-contact employee job satisfaction. This study was conducted in an international

setting using environment using The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) and The

Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003) in a research setting where the literature has shown that

little to no research has been conducted that addresses the influence of followership style

and courageous follower attributes on organizational effectiveness, employee job

satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational performance (Chaleff, 2003,

Kelley, 1992, 2008; Pack, 2001) and specifically, the influence of followership style

(Kelley1992) and Courageous Follower Attributes (Chaleff, 2003; Dixon, 2003) on hotel


This study added to the body of knowledge by demonstrating how the

followership styles and courageous follower attributes of hotel customer-contact

employees influence their job satisfaction and the relationship between their followership

style and the level of courageous follower attributes. Addressing this gap in knowledge

will assist organizations in the service industry and the hotel industry in particular to

evaluate the full effectiveness of new and established programs to improve employee job

satisfaction, organizational commitment and assist in the development of employees and

leaders to develop those behavioral attributes to become exemplary followers.

159

Additionally, this study provided key insights into the enhancement of hotel

customer-contact employee job satisfaction through an understanding of the influence of

the employees’ followership style and courageous follower behavioral attributes and

providing an avenue of improving organizational climate and culture, employee and

leadership development and ultimately improving overall customer service in this

important sector of the service industry.

160

REFERENCES

Alford, C.F. (2008). Whistleblowing as responsible followership In R.E. Riggio, I. C. Chaleff, and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 237-251). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Atchison, T. (2004). Followership: A practical guide to aligning leaders and followers.

Chicago: Health Administration Press. Aggarwal, N., & Gupta, M. (2005). Dissemination of customer-oriented strategy to

customer contact service employees: Application of Hartline, Maxham and McKee (2000) model in Indian settings [HTML version]. South Asian Journal of Management, 2005, 1-11. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/

articles/mi_qa5483/is200501/a1n21375934. Amburgey, D.W.O. (2005). An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction,

organizational culture, and perceived leadership characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, Orlando. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3188100)

Ashforth, B. (1994). Petty tyranny in organizations [Electronic version]. Human

Relations, 47(7), 755-778. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from ProQuest database. Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of

transformational leadership and transactional leadership using the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire [Electronic version]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(4), 441-462. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from Pro-Quest database.

Baker, S. D. (2006). The effect of leader-follower agreement on team effectiveness.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, District of Columbia. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3209933)

Barlett, K.R. (2005). Survey research in organizations. In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton

III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. (pp. 97-113). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press. Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stodgill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial application, 3e. New York: Free Press.

161

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds) (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B. J. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and

sampler set, 3e. Redwood City: CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and

managerial applications, 4e. New York: Free Press. Bass B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational

leadership behavior [Electronic version]. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181-237. Retrieved July 9, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.

Bass, B.M., & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational leadership, 2e. Mahwah: N. J.:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bates, R.A. (2005). Multivariate research methods, In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III

(Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 115-141). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bearden, B.A. (2008). Followership as perceived by leaders in a multidisciplinary

healthcare organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3302631)

Beckerleg, C. N. (2002). An exploration of the practice of followership by school

principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3047612)

Bell, D. (2007). Followers' preferences for leaders' behavioral characteristics: A case

study of franchise restaurants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University database. (Publication No. AAT 3274073)

Bierstadt, R. (1950). An analysis of social power [Electronic version]. American

Sociological Review, 15(6), 730-738. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership, New York: Harper and Row. Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders 2e. San

162

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following, In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67-87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chang, C.P. (2006). A multi-level exploration of factors influencing the front-line

employees’ service quality in international tourist hotels [Electronic version]. The Journal of American Academy of Business 9(2), 285-293. Retrieved on April 22, 2008 from Business Source Complete database.

Chowdary, N., & Saraswat, P. (2004). Service leadership study [Electronic version].

Journal of Services Research, 3(2), 105-123. Retrieved April 22, 2008 from Pro-Quest database.

Clements, C., & Washbush, J.B. (1999). The two faces of leadership: Considering the

dark side of leader-follower dynamics [HTML Electronic version]. Journal of Workplace Learning, 11(5), Retrieved January 6, 2007 from Pro-Quest database.

Colangelo, A. J. (2000). Followership: Leadership styles. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Norman. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9972517)

Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership [Electronic version]. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2), 44-55. Retrieved, January 22, 2007 from Pro-Quest database. Cooper, D. R. & Schindler, P.S. (2008). Business research methods, 10e. New York:

McGraw-Hill. Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient Alpha? An examination of theory and

applications [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98-104. Retrieved September 7, 2008 from http://www.usq.edu.au/users/patrick/ PAPERS/alpha%206.pdf.

Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches, 2e. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. Crotty, M. (2003). The foundations of social research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage de Carbonel, Claudette E. (2007). Differentiation and job satisfaction: Does the

Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI-R) predict job satisfaction as measured in the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS)? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University database. (Publication No. AAT 3247506)

163

Deckert, T. J. (2007). Foundations of followership: A study identifying the values and behaviors deemed most desirable by small business leaders in north Florida. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University database. (Publication No. AAT 3254716)

Densten, I. L., & Gray, J.H. (2001). Leadership development and reflection: What is the

connection [Electronic version]. The International Journal; of Educational Management , 15(3), 119-124. Retrieved August 4, 2008 from Pro-Quest database.

Dixon, E. N. (2003). An exploration of the relationship of organizational level and

measures of follower behaviors Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3108611)

Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational

leadership on follower development and performance. [Electronic version]. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 435-744. Retrieved August 9, 2007 from the Academy of Management archives.

Dvir, T., & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmental characteristics as predicting

transformational leadership: A longitudinal field study. [Electronic version]. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 327-344. Retrieved March 30, 2009 from Business Source Complete database.

Emerson, R.M. (1962). Power-dependence relations [Electronic version]. American

Sociological Review, 27(1), 31-41. Retrieved January 23, 2008 from EBSCOhost database.

Emery, C. R., & Barker, K. J. (2007). The effect of transactional and transformational

leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction of customer contact personnel [Electronic version]. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 11(1), 77-90. Retrieved April 9, 2008 from Business Source Complete database.

Ehrhart, M. G., & Klein, K.J. (2001). Predicting follower preferences for charismatic

leadership: The influence of follower values and personality [Electronic version]. Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 153-179. Retrieved April, 2, 2009 from ProQuest database.

Fiedler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Flood, P. C., Hannan, E., Smith, K. G., Turner, West, M. A., & Dawson, J. (2000). Chief executive leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team

164

effectiveness [Electronic version]. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, (9)3, 401–420. Retrieved June 8, 2007 from Pro-Quest database.

Frye, N., & Breaugh, J. (2004). Family-friendly policies, supervisor support, work-family

conflict and satisfaction: A test of a conceptual model [Electronic version]. Journal of Business & Psychology, 19(2), 197-220. Retrieved November 8, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Fowler, F. J. (2003). Survey Research Methods, 3e. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage G & C, Merriam and Company, (1975). Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield. MA: G & C, Merriam and Company. Gainey T., Kelley D., & Hill, J.A. (1999). Telecommuting's impact on corporate culture

and individual workers: Examining the effect of employee isolation [Electronic version]. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 64(4), 4-10. Retrieved November4, 2008 from Business Source Complete database.

Gerhardt, P. L. 2006). Exploring transformational and transactional leadership types and

customer service success in retail: An effectiveness exploratory case study [Electronic version]. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University, 2006, 1-156). Retrieved April 16, 2008 from Pro-Quest database.

Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1997). Meta-analytic review of Leader-member Exchange

theory: correlates ,and construct issues [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6), 827-844. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Graen, G.B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership:

Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-24.

Greger, K. R., & Peterson, J. (2000). Leadership profiles for the mew millennium,

[(Electronic version]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 16-29. Retrieved October 14, 2006.

Gregersen, H.B., & Black, J.S (2002). J.W. Marriott Jr., On growing the legacy

[Electronic version]. Academy of Management Executive, 16(11), 33-39, Retrieved October, 22, 2006, from Pro-Quest database.

Gregersen, H. B., Morrison, A.J., & Black, J.S (1998). Developing leaders for the global

frontier [Electronic version]. Sloan Management Review, 40(1), 21-32.

165

Gremler, D. D., & Brown, S.W. (1996). Service loyalty, importance and implications. International Service Quality Association c/o Business Research Institute, St. Johns University. Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.gremler.net/personal research/1996_Service _Loyalty_QUIS5.pdf.

Heskett, J. L, Sasser, L.E., & Schlesinger, L.A. (1997). The service profit chain. New

York: Free Press. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1982). Management of organizational behavior utilizing

human resources, 3e. Englewood Cliffs: NJ, Prentiss Hall. Hinkin, T.R. (2005). Scale development principles and practice, In R.A. Swanson and E.

F. Holton III (Eds), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories

apply abroad? [Electronic version] Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from EBSCO Host Database.

Holton III, E.F., & Burnett, M.F. (2005). The basics of quantitative research, In R.A.

Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 27-44). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Howell, J. (2007). Case study on followership and leadership in college teachers.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University database. (Publication No. AAT 3288776)

Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1992). The ethics of charismatic leadership: submission

or liberation? [Electronic version] Academy of Management Executive, 6(2), 43-54. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from Pro-Quest database.

Hwang, I-S., & Chi, D-J. (2005). Relationships among internal marketing, employee job

satisfaction and international hotel performance: An empirical study [Electronic version]. International Journal of Management, 22(2), 285-293. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

Jabnoun, N., & Al Rasasi, A.J. (2005). Transformational leadership and service quality in

UAE hospitals [Electronic version]. Managing Service Quality, 15(1), 70-81. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from ABI/INFORM database.

Jaussi, K.S., Stepfanovich, A., & Devlin, P.G. (2008). Effective followership for

creativity and innovation: A range of colors and dimensions, In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great

166

followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 291-308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, B. A. H. (2001). Organizational culture and job satisfaction as antecedents for

empowerment of associate degree nursing faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3001509)

Kaltenbaugh, L. P. (2008). A study on job satisfaction among campus recreation

administrators at four-year public and private institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Akron, Akron, Ohio. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3323979)

Kelley, R.E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, (Electronic

version), 66(6), 142-148. Retrieved August 11, 2007, from Pro-Quest database. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people

want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday. Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership, In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J. Lipman-

Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kellerman, B. (2004). Leadership warts and all [Electronic version]. Harvard Business

Review, 82(1), 40-45. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from Business Source Premier database.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing

leaders. Boston: Harvard University Press. Kilburn, B. R. (2007). The effects of leader behavior on follower attitudes and intentions

toward the provision of voluntary upward feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3276714)

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Regulatory mode and preferred

leadership styles: How fit increase job satisfaction [Electronic version]. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 137-149. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Kurland, N., & Cooper, C. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in

telecommuting environments [Electronic version]. Journal of High Technology Management Research; 13(1):107-126. Retrieved November 4, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

167

Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from P from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 9921922)

Lawler, III, E., & Porter, L. (1967). The effect of performance on job satisfaction

[Electronic version]. Industrial Relations, 7(1), 20-28. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Lee, Y., & Chang, H. (2008). Relations between teamwork and innovation in

organizations and job satisfaction of employees: A factor analytic study [Electronic version]. International Journal of Management, 25(3), 732-738. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Leslie, J. B., & Van Velsor, E. (1996). A look at derailment today: North America and

Europe. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. ISBN: 1882197151. Liden, R., Erdogan, B, Wayne, S., & Sparrowe R. (2006). Leader-member exchange,

differentiation and task interdependence for individual and group performance [Electronic version]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(6), 723-746. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Lord, R.G. (2008). Followers’ cognitive and affective structures and leadership processes

In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 255-266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lord, R.G., & Emrich, C.G. (2001). Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box:

Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research [Electronic version]. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 551-579. Retrieved July 11, 2007, from Business Source Complete database.

Lundin, S., & Lancaster, L. (1990). Beyond leadership: The importance of followership

[Electronic version]. Futurist, 24(3) 18-22. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Madlock, P. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator competence and

employee satisfaction [Electronic version]. Journal of Business Communication, 45(1), 61-78. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Markle, E. D. (2006). Job satisfaction comparisons between academic librarians in for-

profit and non-profit higher education institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University, Pueblo, Colorado. Retrieved May 18,

168

2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3246295)

Maroosis, J. (2008). Leadership: A partnership in reciprocal following In R.E. Riggio, I.

Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 17-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Marriott International (2009). Culture. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from http://www.marriott.

com/corporateinfo/culture/default.mi. McIntosh, G., & Rima, S. (1997). Overcoming the dark side of leadership: The paradox

of personal dysfunction. Grand Rapids: MI: Baker Book House. McSkimming, Y. R. (2006). A model for enhancing leader and follower development.

Unpublished master’s thesis. Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT MR20619)

Miller, M. (2007). Transformational leadership and mutuality [Electronic version].,

Transformation, 24(3/4), 180-192. Retrieved August 1, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.

Mirabella, J. (2006). Hypothesis testing with SPSS: A non-statisticians guide and tutorial.

Minneapolis, MN: Capella University. Northouse, P.G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice, 4e. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage. Norusis, M.J. (2006). SPSS 14.0 guide to statistical analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice-Hall. Ohlund, B., & Yu, C. (1999). Threats to validity of research design. Retrieved February

29, 2008 from http://www.creative-wisdom.com/teaching/WBI/threat.html. Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple item

measures? [HTML Electronic version]. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5). Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Pro Quest database.

Pack, J. D. (2001). Followership styles: Collaborative leadership among professional

nurses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3136145)

169

Parasuraman, P. ,Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1991). Understanding customer expectations of service [Electronic version]. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 39-48. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Parry, K. W., & Proctor-Thomas, S. B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational

leaders in organizational setting [Electronic version]. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96. Retrieved January 11, 2007, from Pro-Quest database.

Passmore, D.L., & Baker, R.M. (2005). Sampling strategies and power analysis, In R.A.

Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Pitron, J. E. (2008). The influence of exemplary followership on organizational

performance: A phenomenological approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3302640)

Poloski-Vokic, N. Klindzic, M., & Dakovic, M. (2008). Work motivation of highly

educated Croatian employees-What should mangers and HR experts know? [Electronic version]. Southeast European Journal of Economic and Business, 3(1), 89-96. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Pratt, Z. L. (2004). An investigation of the relationships between external environment,

mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3158993)

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement.

Marshfield, MA: Pittman. Raelin, J. (2003). The myth of the charismatic leader [Electronic version]. T+D, 57(3), 46-51.Retreived July 27, 2007, from ProQuest database. Rathi, N., & Rastogi, R. (2008). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being [Electronic

version]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(3), 47-57. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from Business Source Premier database.

Ray, L. K. (2006). Follow the leader: An investigation of the relationship between

hierarchical levels and measures of follower behaviors of selected North Carolina community college employees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3239845)

170

Reynaldo, J., & Santos, A. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales [Electronic HTML version]. Journal of Extension, 37(2), 1-6. Retrieved September 6, 2008, from http://joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.html.

Reynolds, M. (1999). Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less

hierarchal approaches [Electronic version]. Journal of Management Education, 23(5), 537-553. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from ERIC database.

Ricketson, R. S., Sr. (2008). An exploration of the relationship of leadership styles and

dimensions of courageous followership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Regent University, Virginia Beach, Virginia. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3325537)

Rost, J. (2008). Followership: An outmoded concept In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J.

Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 53-64). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Russ-Ett, D., & Hoover, A. L. (2005). in Experimental and quasi-experimental designs,

In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III, In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 75-95). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Russell, R. F., & Stone, A.G. (2002). A review of servant leadership attributes:

Developing a practical model [Electronic version]. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 23(3/4), 145-157. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from Pro-Quest database.

Saltzstein, A., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. (2001). Work-Family Balance and Job

Satisfaction: The Impact of Family-Friendly Policies on Attitudes of Federal Government Employees. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 452-467. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Sankar, Y. (2003). Character, not charisma, is the critical measure of leadership

excellence [Electronic version]. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 45–55. Retrieved February 26, 2007, from Pro-Quest database

Saari, L.,.& Judge, T. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfcation [Electronic

version]. Human Resource Management , 43(4), 395-407. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Sarros, J. C., & Santora, J. C. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership

model in practice [Electronic version]. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 22(7/8), 383-393. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

171

Scandura, T., & Williams, E. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1248-1264. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from Business Source Premier database.

Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schmidt, A. A. (2008). Development and validation of the Toxic Leadership Scale.

Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 1453699)

Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M.G., Mayer, D.M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005).

Understanding organization-customer links in service settings [Electronic version]. Academy of Management Journal. 48(6), 1017-1032. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Schyns, B., & Felfe, J. (2006). The personality of followers and its effect on the

perception of leadership: An overview, a study, and a research agenda. [Electronic version]. Small Group Research, 37, 522. Retrieved April 11, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Seltzer, J., & Bass, B.M. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiative and consideration [Electronic version]. Journal of Management, 16(4), 693-703. Retrieved July 27, 2007, from Pro-Quest database.

Sergeant, A., & Frenkel, S. (2000). When do customer contact employees satisfy

customers? [Electronic version]. Journal of Service Research, 3(1), 18-34. Retrieved May 28, 2008, from http.www.sagepub.com.

Smith, B.N., Montagno, R.V., & Kuzmenko, T.N.(2004). Transformational and servant

leadership: content and contextual comparisons [Electronic version]. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 10(4), 81-91. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Spears, L. (2004). Practicing servant-leadership [Electronic version]. Leader to Leader,

(34), 7-11. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from Business Source Complete, database.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and

consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strappe, S. (2002). Job satisfaction between human resource and non-human resource

professionals within a layoff survivor environment. Unpublished master’s thesis,

172

Kean University, Union, New Jersey. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT EP12299)

Swanson, R. A. (2005). The process of framing research in organizations, In R.A.

Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 11-26). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Tewari, R. (2009). Job satisfaction level of scientists in government-owned research and

development organizations in India[ Electronic version]. ICFAI Journal of Management Research, 8(4), 21-45. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Thomas, L & Ganster, D. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-

family conflict and strain: A control perspective [Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology; 80(1):6-15. Retrieved November 8 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Tillman, W., & Tillman, C. (2008). And you thought it was the apple: A study of job

satisfaction among teachers [Electronic version]. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 12(3), 1-18. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Townsend, P., & Gebhardt, J. (2003). The leadership-teamship-followership continuum

[Electronic version]. Leader to Leader, (29), 18-21. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006a). Introduction to validity. Social research methods.net, 1-4,

[HTML/version]. Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http//www.socialresearch methods.net kb/introval/php.

Trochim, W.M.K. (2006b). Reliability.Socialresearchmethods.net, 1.[HTML version]

Retrieved January 25, 2008, from http//www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ reliable.php.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006c). The multi-trait-multi-method matrix-Construct validity

[HTML version]. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from http://www.socialresarc hmethods.net.kb/mtmmmat.php.

Uken, B. (2008). Followership in professional services firm, In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff

and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 127-136). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

van Bentum, R., & Stone, M. (2005). Customer relationship management and the impact

of corporate culture-A European study [Electronic version]. Journal of Database

173

Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 13(1), 28-54. Retrieved April 20, 2008, from Business Source Complete database.

Vanagunas, S. (1989). Max Weber's Authority Models and the Theory of X-Inefficiency:

The Economic Sociologist's Analysis Adds More Structure to Liebenstien's Critique of Rationality [Electronic version]. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 48(4), 393-400. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Van Dick, R., Hirst, G., Grojean, M., & Wieseke, J. (2007). Relationships between leader

and follower organizational identification and implications for follower attitudes and behavior [Electronic version]. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(1), 133-150. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Vrba, A. M. (2008). Relationship between follower behavior style and perception of

effective leadership characteristics in adult learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses @ Capella University database. (Publication No. AAT 3320830)

Walumba, F., Orwa, B., Wang, P., & Lawler, J. (2005) Transformational leadership,

organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A comparative study of Kenyan and U.S. financial firms.[Electronic version]. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2). Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Wanous, J., & Lawler III, E. (1972, April). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction

[Electronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(2), 95-105. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.

Webb, S. R. (2007). The relationship between elementary school principals' leadership

approaches and teacher motivation and job satisfaction in Alabama's Black Belt region. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alabama State University, Montgomery,Alabama. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3292149)

Yang, B. (2005). Factor analysis methods, In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.),

Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 181-199). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

174

APPENDIX A. THE FOLLOWERSHIP QUESTIONAIRE

Copyright ©1992 by Robert E. Kelley All rights reserved

The Followership Questionnaire

Instructions

1. This survey is designed to measure the type of follower you are. It is anonymous and confidential. No personal information will be gathered as part of this survey. Results from all participants will be gathered and combined to maintain participant confidentiality and anonymity. 2. Please be as accurate and honest as possible in your responses. The survey will consist of 20 questions and use the survey scale to indicate the extent to which each statement best describes you. Please think of a specific but typical followership situation and how you acted. This survey should take about ten minters to complete. 3. Use the following rating scale and CHECK the BEST answer for each statement that best describes your strongest feelings.

Survey Key 0.= Never- Never is defined as zero (0) percent of the time. 1 = Once in a While- Once in a while is defined as 1-29 percent of the time. 2 = Sometimes- Sometimes is defined as 30-59 percent of the time. 3 = Occasionally- Occasionally is defined as 60-79 percent of the time. 4 = Often- Often is defined as 80-89 percent of the time. 5 = Almost Always- Almost Always is defined as 90-99 percent of the time. 6 = Always- Always is defined as 100 percent of the time

QUESTIONS

Question 1: Does your work help you fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is important to you? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

175

Question 2: Are your personal work goals aligned with the organization’s most important goals? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 3: Are you highly committed to and energized by your work and organization, giving them your best ideas and performance? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 4: Does your enthusiasm spread to and energize your co-workers? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 5: Instead of waiting for or merely accepting what the leader tells you, do you personally identify which organizational activities are most critical for achieving the organization’s most important goals? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

176

Question 6: Do you actively develop a distinctive competence in those critical activities so that you become more valuable to the leader and the organization? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 7: When starting on a new job or assignment, do you promptly build a record of successes in tasks that are important to the leader? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 8: Can the leader give you a difficult assignment without the benefit of much supervision, knowing that you will meet your deadline , with the highest quality work and that you will ”fill in the cracks” if need be? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 9: Do you take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go above and beyond your job? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

177

Question 10: When you are not the leader of a group project, do you still contribute at a high level, often doing more than your share? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 11: Do you independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute significantly to the leader’s or the organization’s goals? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 12: Do you try to solve tough problems (technical or organizational) rather than look to the leader to do it for you? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 13: Do you help out other co-workers, making them look good, even when you don’t get any credit? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

178

Question 14: Do you help the leader or group see both the upside potential and the downside risks of ideas or plans , playing the devil’s advocate if need be? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 15: Do you understand the leader’s needs, goals, and constraints and then work hard to help meet the leader’s needs and goals and work within the leader’s constraints? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 16: Do you actively and honestly admit to your strengths and weaknesses rather than delay evaluation? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 17: Do you make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of the leaders’ decision rather than just doing what you are told? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

179

Question 18: When the leader asks you to do something that runs contrary to your professional or personal preferences, do you say “no” rather than “yes”? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 19: Do you act on your own ethical standards rather than the leaders or the group’s standards? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never Question 20: Do you assert your views on important issues, even though it might conflict with your group or reprisals from your leader? ___ (6) Always ___ (5) Almost Always ___ (4) Often ___ (3) Occasionally ___ (2) Sometimes ___ (1) Once in a while ___ (0) Never

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY!

Copyright ©1992 by Robert E. Kelley All rights reserved

Note. The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) was modified, used and reproduced

with written permission of the instrument’s author, Dr. Robert E. Kelley, Carnegie

Mellon University. A copy of the written permission was provided to the Capella

180

University Institutional Review Board (IRB).The changes to the instrument involved

providing clarifying instructions for use of the instrument, a survey key and using a zero

in the Likert scale to obtain a more accurate score to determine followership style. In

addition the wording of some of the questions was changed to improve readability and

provide more clarification to an international audience.

181

APPENDIX B. THE FOLLOWER PROFILE

Copyright © 2001 Eugene. Dixon. All rights reserved

The Follower Profile Instructions

1. This survey is designed to measure behavioral attributes associated with Courageous Followership. These attributes are (1) The courage to assume responsibility; (2) The courage to serve; (3) The courage to challenge; (4) The courage to participate in transformation and (5) The courage to leave/take moral action. This survey is anonymous and confidential. The first part of the survey will consist of four questions for demographic data: age, gender, education and occupation, however, no personal information will be gathered as part of this survey. Results from all participants will be gathered and combined to maintain participant confidentiality and anonymity. 2. Please be as accurate and honest as possible in your responses. The second part of the survey will consist of 56 statements and use the survey scale to indicate the extent to which each statement best reflects your opinion about it. This survey should take about thirty minters to complete. 3. Use the following rating scale and CHECK the BEST answer for each statement that best describes your strongest feelings or in the case of the demographic data accurately reflects your status. Survey Key 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat Agree 4 =Agree 5 =Strongly Agree

PART 1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

GENDER:

___ (1) Male ___ (2) Female

182

AGE:

___ (1) 16-25 years

___ (2) 26-30 years ___ (3) 31-44 years ___ (4) 45-54 years ___ (5) 55 years and older EDUCATION:

___ (1) Not a High School/Secondary School Graduate ___ (2) High School/Secondary School Graduate ___ (3) Some College ___ (4) College Graduate ___ (5) Some Graduate work and beyond JOB DESCRIPTION OF PRIMARY JOB:

___ (1) Guest Services Agent ___ (2) Room Attendant ___ (3) Bellman ___ (4) Night Auditor ___ (5) Catering Coordinator ___ (6) Guest Services Manager ___ (7) Assistant Manager ___ (8) Corporate Office Staff

PART 2 STATEMENTS Statement 1: I create a supportive environment in which changes can occur. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 2: I act responsibly. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree

183

Statement 3: I am passionate about work and commitments. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 4: I command respect. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 5: I notice and acknowledge improvements. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 6: I provide support for experimentation and learning. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 7: I demonstrate appreciation and support for the group values and traditions. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 8: I advise my supervisor of concern for threatened personal values and principles. ___ (5) Strongly Agree

184

___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 9: I prepare to transfer responsibilities should firing or layoff become necessary. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 10: I give feedback to my supervisor on policies. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 11: I manage myself to meet deadlines and commitments. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 12: I recognize the impact of personal exhaustion. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 13: I have no tolerance for flagrant or repeated breaches of trust. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree

185

Statement 14: I find avenues to effect change. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 15: I tell others my supervisor’s values without injecting my own personal agenda. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 16: I give my supervisor feedback on behaviors. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 17: I assume responsibility for bending rules in situations where the rules keep me from serving others. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 18: I would resign to protect my supervisor from negative consequences as a result of my personal actions. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 19: I help my supervisor clarify the vision and goals.

186

___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 20: I accept the organization’s need for new people. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 21: I seek challenges. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 22: I establish ways to cope change that help reinforce transforming change. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 23: I am personally committed to the organization’s shared purpose and vision. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 24: I summarize for others what my supervisor says. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree

187

___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 25: I provide my supervisor feedback on leader performance-comforts and confronts. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 26: I support rules serving the common purpose and question rules that do not. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 27: I minimize unnecessary pressure on my supervisor. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 28: I test ideas to demonstrate their potential. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 29: I defend my supervisor from unwarranted attack. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree

188

Statement 30: I point out how destructive behaviors do not match up with the values of the organization. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 31: I encourage complainers to communicate concerns not emotions. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 32: I will not shy away from uncomfortable situations. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 33: I confront the danger of not considering alternative ideas. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 34: I help the organization escape the limits of the current mindset. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 35: I evaluate my own performance. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree

189

___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 36: I take initiative even if the task is not part of my job. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 37: I follow as a conscious act of free will. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 38: I act to relieve power from an undeserving leader. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 39: I am willing to take concerns about the organization to the highest levels. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 40: I challenge inappropriate model and model appropriate behavior. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 41: I am willing to bend the rules to get the right thing done.

190

___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 42: I ask questions to guide my supervisor’s thinking. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 43: I take moral and legal responsibility for actions or lack of action. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 44: I am willing to demonstrate attitudes that differ from the norm. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 45: I respect my organization’s way of doing things. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 46: I perform my tasks and then I voluntarily help my co-workers accomplish theirs. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree

191

___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 47: I strive to enhance communication within the organization. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 48: I seek a full understanding of the issues before I take any action. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 49: I will not compromise my personal ethics for continued employment. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 50: I demonstrate respect for others in the organization. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 51: I indentify and obtain appropriate organizational support for activities. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 52: I provide recommendations to solve identified problems rather than complain about problems.

192

___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 53: I present ideas clearly with openness and trust. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 54: I present factual information on issues without overstating the case. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 55: I provide constructive feedback and positive reinforcement to others. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree Statement 56: I accept constructive feedback and implement change when needed. ___ (5) Strongly Agree ___ (4) Agree ___ (3) Somewhat Agree ___ (2) Disagree ___ (1) Strongly Disagree

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY

Copyright © 2001 Eugene. Dixon. All rights reserved

193

Note. The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003) was modified, used and reproduced with

written permission of the instrument’s author, Dr. Eugene N. Dixon, East Carolina

University. A copy of the written permission was provided to the Capella University

Institutional Review Board (IRB).The changes to the instrument involved providing

clarifying instructions, use of a survey key, making changes in the wording of the

statements of the instrument to improve readability, changing the vernacular of the

wording to remove idioms common to an American audience and adding four questions

at the beginning of the instrument to collect demographic data.

194

APPENDIX C: THE JOB SATISFACTION SURVEY

Copyright © 1994 Paul E. Spector. All rights reserved

The Job Satisfaction Survey

Instructions 1. This survey is designed to measure employee job satisfaction. It is anonymous and confidential. No personal information will be gathered as part of this survey. Results from all participants will be gathered and combined to maintain participant confidentiality and anonymity. 2. Please be as accurate and honest as possible in your responses. The survey will consist of 36 statements and use the survey scale to indicate the extent to which each statement best reflects your opinion about it. This survey should take about fifteen minters to complete. 3. Use the following rating scale and CHECK the BEST answer for each statement that best describes your strongest feelings.

Survey Key

Positively Worded Question s Negatively Worded Questions 1 = Disagree Very Much 6 = Disagree Very Much 2 = Disagree Moderately 5 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Disagree Slightly 4 =Agree Slightly 3 =Agree Slightly 5 =Agree Moderately 2 =Agree Moderately 6 =Agree Very Much 1 =Agree Very Much

STATEMENTS Statement 1: I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately

195

___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 2: There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 3: My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 4: I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 5: When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 6: Many of our rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately

196

___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 7: I like the people I work with. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 8: I sometimes feel my job is meaningless. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 9: Communications seem good within this organization. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 10: Raises are too few and far between. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 11: Those that do well on the job, stand a fair chance of being promoted. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately

197

___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 12: My supervisor is unfair to me. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 13: The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 14: I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 15: My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 16: I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. __ (6) Disagree Very Much

198

___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 17: I like the things I do at work. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 18: The goals of this organization are not clear to me. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 19: I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 20: People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 21: My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.

199

___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 22: The benefit package we have is equitable. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 23: There are few rewards for those who work here. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 24: I have too much to do at work. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 25: I enjoy my coworkers. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 26: I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. ___ (6) Agree Very Much

200

___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 27: I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 28: I feel confident with my chances for salary increases. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 29: There are benefits we do not have which we should have. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 30: I like my superiors. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 31: I have too much paperwork. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much

201

___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 32: I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 33: I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 34: There is too much bickering and fighting at work. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much ___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much Statement 35: My job is enjoyable. ___ (6) Agree Very Much ___ (5) Agree Moderately ___ (4) Agree Slightly ___ (3) Disagree Slightly ___ (2) Disagree Moderately ___ (1) Disagree Very Much Statement 36: Work assignments are not fully explained. ___ (6) Disagree Very Much

202

___ (5) Disagree Moderately ___ (4) Disagree Slightly ___ (3) Agree Slightly ___ (2) Agree Moderately ___ (1) Agree Very Much

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION TODAY

Copyright © 1994 Paul E. Spector. All rights reserved

Note. The Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997) was modified, used and reproduced

with written permission of the instrument’s author, Dr. Paul E. Spector. A copy of the

written permission was provided to the Capella University Institutional Review Board

(IRB).The changes to the instrument involved providing clarifying instructions, use of a

survey key to identify positive and negatively worded statements and making changes in

the Likert scale on the negatively worded statements to facilitate reverse scoring during

the data analysis.