EFFECTIVE FOLLOWERSHIP:
LEADERSHIP TURNED UPSIDE DOWN

Robert P. Vecchio
Department of Management

University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, Indiana

The twelve members of a professional association recently met to select a
new president. Each member had a hand in pressuring the former president to
resign. AI; a result of a number of minor actions and omissions of actions the
members had made the president's task so difficult that he had found it nearly
impossible to function as the head of the association. Now, each member was
prepared to fight for a preferred candidate for the presidential position. When
the group's discussion came to the selection of a new president, one member
observed, "Who can we find that will be able to lead us?" Unexpectedly, one
clever member replied, "More importantly, who can we find that we will be
able to follow?"

This wry reply provides an insight to a much neglected feature of the
process of leadership: followership. Traditionally, studies of leadership have
focused on leader behaviors and leader attributes. Omitted in these writings
is a serious consideration of the impact of followership as a determinant of
effective leadership. Yet, the activities of leadership and followership are
inextricably related. The concepts are intertwined in Ying-Yang fashion: one
concept implies (and, in fact, requires) the other. For example, consider the
following propositions developed by Trudy Heller and Jon VanTil [3]:

• The leader must lead, and do it well to retain leadership; the follower
must follow, and do it well to retain followership

• Where all seek to lead, or all seek to follow, there can be no leadership
or followership.

• Good leadership enhances followers, just as good followership enhances
leaders.

• Leadership, and followership, may be an art in which people can become
more highly skilled.

A good argument can be made that when we commonly speak of effective
leadership, we are really speaking of effective followership. As evidence of this,
consider that we typically measure a manager's effectiveness by examining the
performance of his or her unit. The performance of a unit, however, is often
more a function of the talents and desires of the followers than the leader. A

given level of subordinate talent and motivation can have far more to do with
the unit's performance than the leader's efforts.

AI; an essential element in the development and management of an effective
business strategy, the human resources configuration of those units comprising
an organization is critical. In this article, the importance and dynamics of
effective followership will be explored. In addition, techniques for fostering
and maintaining effective followership will be considered.

The Limits of Leadership

In many situations, it can be extremely difficult for a leader to influence,
easily or directly, the performance of a unit. Social scientists have recently
come to recognize that many factors can serve as "substitutes" for and ''neu-
tralizers" of a leader's efforts [5]. Substitutes for leadership include explicit
rules and procedures, rigid reward structures which a leader cannot affect,
and physical distance between a leader and his subordinates. For example,
subordinates who are given explicit goals and rules for performing their jobs,
will not need to be given direction by a leader. Characteristics of individuals
can serve to neutralize a leader's influence. For example, subordinates who
are highly experienced, possess sufficient training and knowledge, and have
a high need for independence or a sense of professionalism will not need, or
may even resent, a leader who tries to be directive. Task characteristics, such
as routineness, frequent feedback, and a high degree of structure can also
undercut a leader's potential influence.

What we typically think of as being failures in leadership, may also be
rightly characterized as failures in followership. A degree of responsibility
for unit performance rests squarely on subordinates. Superiors, where their
influence can make a difference, cannot be effective if subordinates do not
subscribe to unit goals, or exert sufficient effort. Subordinates have a re-
sponsibility to be conscientious, and to expend energies for unit goals. In
an enlightened view, both leaders and followers share in the responsibility of
being productive and effective.

Leadership and Followership: Some Popular Fictions

The traditional view of leadership assumes that leaders are responsible for
motivating subordinates and eliciting their commitment - that subordinates
are initially lacking in responsibility and a willingness to commit. Of course,
a leader's success at eliciting commitment depends on many factors. It is
partly a function of individual differences in subordinates' willingness of pre-
disposition to be committed, loyal, etc. An individual's upbringing can play
an important role in determining the degree of his or her willingness to follow
[8]. Whether or not, and to what degree, specific values are emphasized in
a child's home can influence that individual's attitude toward superiors, as
an adult. The emerging findings from the social sciences also suggest that
managers are seldom fully in command (as frequently portrayed), and subor-
dinates are rarely as submissive or faceless as is generally assumed.

Much has been made of the need to avoid being deceived by yes-men.
A variation of this notion is popularly referred to as group-think, wherein a
leader is surrounded by yea-sayers and devotees who contribute to the group's
self-deception about its invulnerability [4]. In a unit that is victimized by the
group-think phenomenon, the leader may make a disastrous decision because
his or her followers have total conviction of the ultimate success of the group's
efforts. Such a group will not seriously entertain the possibility of failure. The
Bay of Pigs fiasco of the Kennedy Administration and the early escalation of
U.S. military involvement in Vietnam by the Johnson Administration have
often been attributed to group-think. In both the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam
escalation decisions, the respective leaders and their supportive followers un-
consciously conspired to create a mindset that inhibited their ability or foresee
obstacles to the success to their plans.

The group-think phenomenon is most likely to occur in a highly cohesive
work unit where the members are already strongly committed to their leader
and the group's objectives. The message portrayed by the group-think exam-
ples is largely overstated since, in reality, the preconditions for group-think
(i.e., extreme cohesion and total followers hip ) are rare. More typically, man-
agers must wrestle with a situation wherein their subordinates are far less
loyal, and far less attracted to other members of the work unit than group-
think requires. There is a good deal of potential followership held in reserve
by subordinates.

Various anecdotal accounts of the group-think phenomenon have made it
possible, and popular, to criticize the notion of followership. Similarly, well-
publicized accounts of the predisposition of some individuals to blindly submit
to authority in experimental settings have contributed to a criticism of fol-
lowership. One famous study by Stanley Milgram [9] found that a majority of
normal adults would administer seemingly painful electric shocks to another
participant in a research study, even if the recipient of the shock protested
and demanded to be set free. A related study by Phil Zimbardo [12] reported
that college students who participated in role playing the job of prison guard
would all too readily engage in the more cruel and sadistic activities stereo-
typically thought to characterize the treatment of prisoners by prison guards.
In addition, the predisposition of some individuals to follow authority has
been denigrated by the reports of social scientists in early research on the
"obedient personality." Specifically, researchers during World War II sought
to better understand the so-called "Nazi personality" and thus attempted to
study fascist tendencies via a personality scale [10]. This research on the obe-
dient (or fascist) personality, of course, represents an attempt to understand
an aberrant style of behavior. Omitted in these classic studies were attempts
to understand followership within normal settings (that is, hospitals, profit-
oriented organizations, etc.).

While these studies provide fascinating insights into the more bizarre as-
pects of human behavior, their results do not have firm implications for life in
organizations. Although laboratory experiments can offer insights to employee

behavior, these popular studies often involved the creation of brief, transitory
episodes, wherein people were placed in highly ambiguous and tension-charged
settings of very short duration. Normal, adult behavior in the ongoing role
of employee/subordinate does not readily lend itself to cruelty and blind obe-
dience. The social norms and codes of personal conduct that exist in the
real world (and are largely suspended in the temporary setting created in a
research laboratory), inhibit tendencies toward excessive cruelty and blind
obedience. In addition, most managers do not deliberately seek to be sur-
rounded by blindly obedient and subservient individuals. The traits of good
followership (that is, a sense of responsibility, adult-orientation, commitment,
openness, and loyalty) are what most managers desire.

Styles of Followership

All managers are familiar with the notion of "styles of leadership." When
this expression is used, we typically think of such terms as autocratic, partici-
pative, laissez-faire, etc. We can also extend this perspective to include styles
of followership. Although a neglected topic, it is useful to consider the ma-
jor dimensions along which subordinates differ, and to consider how follower
styles may be developed and maintained.!

Figure 1 displays a framework for conceptualizing styles of followership.
The framework incorporates two dimensions: compliance-defiance, and loyalty-
hostility. The dimension of compliance-defiance is a behavioral dimension, and
reflects the extent to which a follower conforms to the directives of a superior,
versus undermines or counters the supervisor's desires. Loyalty-hostility is an
attitudinal dimension which represents the degree to which a subordinate is
supportive of, versus antagonistic toward, a supervisor and his or her goals.
By crossing the two dimensions, we create a set of quadrants, each of which
has a unique meaning.

In quadrant I (loyal, compliant), we are dealing with a supportive and
conforming individual. Quadrant II refers to a compliant, but hostile indi-
vidual. This would be the case of a subordinate who is maliciously obedient.
Quadrant III is a person who is both hostile and defiant, while quadrant IV
is a person who is defiant, but loyal (such as a conscientious objector would
be). In the extremes of each quadrant (i.e., outside the circle), we are dealing
with a form of mental illness. In their most exaggerated forms, the blindly
obedient follower and the extremely hostile subordinate (quadrants I and III)
represent forms of illness. An extremely hostile but obedient individual is be-
ing logically inconsistent, and is perhaps only compliant because of external
constraints (for example, fear of being terminated or having difficulty find-
ing another position). An individual in quadrant III is also, in the extreme,
experiencing distress. Such a person (who is simultaneously defiant, but com-
mitted to a supervisor's goals) may eventually be called to explain his or her

lOne useful framework, which was developed by Zaleznik [11], served as the starting
point for developing the present scheme.

actions, perhaps before a disciplinary board or a court. Eventual separation
from the unit is the most likely outcome for an individual who is caught in
the dilemma of supporting a supervisor, but defying his diIectives. At the ex-
treme, this may be thought of as a situation which induces a form of mental
illness. Finally, it should be noted that although the two dimensions are, in
the "real world," likely to be highly correlated (such that loyal employees are
likely to be compliant, and so on), there are certainly many occasions wherein
attitudes and behaviors are not highly correlated.

Figure I. DIMENSIONS OF FOLLOWERSHIP

COMPLIANCE

LOYALTY

DEFIANCE

HOSTILITY

Developing and Mointoining Effective Followership

Managers, of course, have a responsibility for developing and maintaining
the followership of their subordinates (Note: being a follower and being a sub-
ordinate are not equivalent notions, as being a leader and being a supervisor
also are not equivalent terms). The framework displayed in Figure 1 provides
a guide for understanding how to approach the task of developing follower-
ship. The compliant-defiant (that is, behavioral) aspect of followership can
be best attended to by rewarding subordinates for engaging in appropriate
action and withholding rewards for inappropriate action. Volumes have been
written on the importance and utility of tying rewards more closely to per-
formance [6). Generally, making rewards contingent on performance tends to
enhance productivity. Simple compliance can also be more reliably predicted
from contingent rewards. Enhancing the attitudinal aspect of followership
(i.e." the dimension of loyalty-hostility) is far more complicated, in terms of
the social processes that are involved. Nonetheless, several recommendations
can be deduced from the available literature in the social sciences.

The Cost of Admission
Making the expense of attaining group membership more costly to the

individual is a powerful means of inducing employee commitment. That is to
say, individuals will have a more positive attitude toward group membership if
they are compelled to expend more time, money, or effort to attain and main-
tain membership. A dramatic illustration of this phenomenon comes from a
classic social science study by Eliott Aronson and Judson Mills [1]. As part of
their research, these investigators had research subjects engage in an unpleas-
ant activity as a prerequisite for admission to a group. Specifically, individual
female college students, who were interested in joining a group that discussed
topics related to human sexuality, were asked to read a written passage into a
tape recorder (ostensibly to test their voice for maturity of reaction). Several
groups of subjects were run in the study. One group was given a fairly in-
nocuous passage to read (i.e., a mild initiation experience), while other groups
read relatively more explicit and relatively sexually detailed passages in order
to gain admission to the group (i.e., more severe initiation experience). All
students were then asked to listen to a tape-recording of the group discus-
sion (the group had allegedly already met several times). The discussion was
deliberately staged so as to be extremely boring and unattractive (e.g., the
members dryly and haltingly discussed the sexual habits of grasshoppers and
other insects).

The investigators were primarily interested in how each applicant for group
membership would evaluate the group. Intriguingly, the females who were put
through the more difficult initiation experience rated the group more highly
(Le., gave higher ratings of the members's attractiveness, and intelligence,
based on the tape). In a replication of this study by Gerard and Mathewson,
subjects were required to demonstrate their ability to control their emotions

by being given varying degrees of electric shock. The results were identical:
the more electric shock a subject received, the more favorably she rated the
group [2]. Thus, it appears that the more costly it is to individuals to gain
admittance to a group, the more they will value their membership. This form
of rationalization can be found in other varieties of group membership. For
example, fraternities and sororities require "pledges" for membership to un-
dergo a hazing period, where distasteful initiation experiences are forced on
the would-be members. The resulting loyalty of the members of these orga-
nizations is well known.

Participation in Decision Making
A second method for inducing loyalty is to involve subordinates in the

decision-making process. Participation in decision making increases an indi-
vidual's sense of involvement and, thereby dedication to the ultimate course
of action. If the participation is genuine, participation can lead to a sense
of "ownership" for a goal. A manager must be careful not to merely create
an illusion of participation by asking for advise and input from subordinates,
which he or she does not intend to incorporate into the final decision. Many
popular motivational schemes (e.g., MBO and quality circles) incorporate the
notion of involving subordinates in planning, goal setting, and suggesting im-
provements in work methods.

Creating a Sense of Identification
A third device for soliciting loyalty is to create a sense of identity with

a group or its leader. Many organizations try to illicit a sense of identity
by having group members wear uniforms, or by emblazoning a company logo
on paychecks, stationery, and LD. cards. Beyond these simple techniques,
a sense of identity can be fostered by first understanding the value system
of employees. If employees value certain notions (such as the importance of
being a part of a family, or the importance of self-reliance), a manager can
appeal to these notions by frequently relating to and highlighting these values
as part of the theme of his or her administration. For example, as part of
his election campaigns, President Reagan skillfully managed to identify his
administration with the values of a strong defense and self-reliance (themes
which were attractive to the American populace, especially at the end of Pres-
ident Carter's term in office). In short, a sense of identity can be achieved by
frequent use of symbols (both tangible and verbal).

Accenting the Importance of Followership
Finally, a manager can enhance loyalty by demonstrating to his unit that

loyalty and commitment are highly valued. For example, he or she can high-
light the history of the organization and what makes for success and failure in
the organization; a manager can stress the importance of loyalty and commit-
ment in attaining both personal and corporate success. By their own conduct,
managers communicate the extent to which loyalty is likely to be valued in

their own units. If a manager is cynical and critical of superiors, he is more
likely to create within his own unit a belief that sarcasm and second-guessing
of superiors is an acceptable norm. That is not to say, of course, that a
manager should be blindly devoted and praiseworthy of superiors. Rather,
a manager should be respectful toward and considerate of the reputation of
superiors (and all others) and predisposed to offer support and aid to help
the organization achieve its goals.

To be sure, organizations would come to a grinding halt without a minimal
degree of followership. Yet, the level of followership in the United States over
the past two decades appears to be at an historically low level. 2 Our capacity
for greater levels of effective followership is not completely utilized. Perhaps
our readiness to follow is at a low ebb because of the level of leadership (as
distinct from headship) has not also been maximal. Our country has come
through a difficult era for top-level leaders, a period characterized by assas-
sinations and assassination attempts, near-impeachments, and questioning of
traditional values. Also, employees are better educated, more outspoken, and
more conscious of rights and entitlements than in the past. However, it is
still popular to call for more effective leadership. Yet, organizational perfor-
mance will not be maximal without the necessary condition of responsible
followership.

The principle of followership is perhaps best understood at the U.S. Mil-
itary Academy at West Point, where leadership is a central focus of the
curriculum-the interrelated nature of leadership and followership is acknowl-
edged. As they say at West Point, "(i)f you wish to develop people into
leaders, you must begin by teaching them to be followers" [7].

References

1. Aronson, E. and Mills, J. 'The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking
for a Group." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 59, pp.
177-181 (1959).

2. Gerard, H. B. and Mathewson, G. C. 'The Effects of Severity of Initi-
ation on Liking for a Group: A Replication." Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, vol. 2, pp. 278-287 (1966).

3. Heller, T. and VanTil, J. V. "Leadership and Followership: Some Sum-
mary Propositions." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 18, pp.
405-414 (1982).

4. Janis, I. L. Groupthink, second edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
(1982).

2Followership in the United States is also noticeably suboptimal when one considers
the apparent level of followership in other industrialized nations, such as Japan and West
Germany.

5. Kerr, S. and Jermier, J. "Substitutes for Leadership: Their Meaning
and Measurement." Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
pp. 375-403 (1978).

6. Lawler, E. E., III. "Whatever Happened to Incentive Pay?" New Man-
agement, vol. 1, pp. 37-41 (1984).

7. Litzinger, W. and Schaeffer, T. "Leadership Through Followership."
B1uineu Horizon~, (1982).

8. McClelland, D. The Achieving Society. Princeton, NJ: VanNostrand
(1961).

9. Milgram, S. Obedience to Authority. London: Thvistock Publications
(1974).

10. Sanford, F. H. Authoritariani~m and Leadership. Philadelphia, PA:
Stephenson (1950).

11. Zaleznik, A. ''The Dynamics of Subordinancy." Harvard Busine~s Re-
view, May-June 1965, pp. 119-131.

12. Zimbardo, P. G. ''The Power and Pathology of Imprisonment." Con-
gres~ional Re~earch, Serial No. 15, Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office (1971).

Effective Followership: Leadership Turned Upside Down