Minor Project 1: Leaders and Followers
Student’s First name, Middle Initial(s), Last Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course number and name
Instructor’s Name and Title
Assignment Due Date
Minor Project 1: Leaders and Followers
Leadership and followership are interdependent concepts. However, while the spotlight has continuously been on the notion of leadership, followership has been given minimal attention in academic literature. In the process, the two concepts have resulted in several debates about their correct definitions. Accordingly, the emergence of these definitions led to the existence of different yet similar meanings of the two concepts. Thus, despite various perspectives, especially when the leadership is given a substantially positive description and followership a negative one, both have a symbiotic relationship, as one cannot succeed without another (Gilbert & Matviuk,2008). The paper therefore defines the concepts of leadership and followership, their history and how they are and will be perceived in the current and coming era.
Leadership
The term “leadership” has various meanings. It is a widely valued commodity that has progressively captivated the public (Northouse, 2018). The pursuit of understanding the leadership and all that it takes for people to foster the essential qualities of effective leaders have perturbed a magnitude of persons worldwide. Furthermore, leadership is also defined as a measurement of improving the social, professional, and personal lives of individuals (Haslam et al., 2015). Every company seeks persons possessing strong leadership skills since it is believed that they are exceptional assets that can improve a company’s ultimate productivity. Some scholars have defined the term as a trait or behavior, whereas others theorize leadership from an information-processing standpoint or relationship perspective. Hence, leadership has various definitions depending on the era these descriptions were derived.
History
The concept of leadership progressed historically. By the 1930s, it was hypothesized as a character to influence rather than dominate (Northouse, 2018). Similarly, some scholars like Kearns, Hemphill and Coons called leadership as the collaboration of an individual’s specific personality traits with the characters of a particular group. Among them, they also noted though a person’s attitude and activities might be self-determined, some of these activities and attitudes can be easily influenced by leaders. In the 1940s, there was a radical advancement of a group methodology that defined leadership. During that era, leadership was described as a distinct behavior imposed on individuals when leaders controlled and directed group activities (Haslam et al., 2015). Accordingly, leadership through persuading was divided from leadership through coercion. During the early 1950s, three ideas affected the leadership definition which included the activities that leaders undertook, their behavior, and individual skills. In this era, an extension of a group philosophy was recognized, and leadership was linked to the activities that leaders executed in subordinate groups. It was likewise explained as the relationship that created shared goals. The meaning was given based on the leaders’ behaviors revealed during their tenure. The efficiency of leadership was established; hence, leadership was once more expounded depending on individual capacity to affect the effectiveness of a whole group (Northouse, 2018). The concept of leadership changed again in the 1970s, as it focused more on the administrative behavioral approach. Therefore, throughout the history, leadership was clarified as the act of initiating, maintaining, and completing the projected goals.
Future Perspective
During the early 21st century, the debate on whether leadership and management are different processes continued, even though emerging research articles stressed mainly on the leadership process. Unlike the historical period, the current era focuses on leadership as the process where one individual affects a group of people to prosper towards attaining a mutual objective rather than developing more various methods of describing leadership. The concept of leadership is currently heading towards a different perspective. The term has various emerging approaches that are ranging from spiritual, servant, authentic, to adaptive ones. For instance, the authentic leadership approach emphasizes the correctness of the leaders as well as their leadership styles (Northouse, 2018, p. 8). Additionally, spiritual leadership focuses on the various leadership styles that exploit the sense of membership, values, and call to encourage many followers. Similarly, the adaptive leadership approach helps leaders inspire followers through challenges and provide them with relevant solutions. Lastly, servant leadership gives leaders responsibilities of servants that utilize caring ethics while focusing on the followers’ needs to assist them in improving their knowledge and becoming independent. Thus, owing to the global influences and ever-changing generational variances, leadership would develop.
Followership
Definition
Followership is also defined in many ways both by historical and current academics. It can be deliberated as an array of specific skills that augment leadership accountability in a hierarchical class. Such social idea is vital for the progress of the leadership process. The term can also be defined as a personal action of subordinating a position within a group of people (Mannion et al., 2015). Other scholars state that followership is the conduct engaged in while relating with different leaders to accomplish organizational goals. Hence, followership is predominantly described as an intentional practice of subordination to supplement the leaders.
History
Between the 1960s and 1980s, followership was mainly defined according to the studies of scholars, such as Zaleznik and Kelley. While Zaleznik’s definition of followership was centered on the personal characteristics of followers, Kelley’s description emphasized the followers’ motivation and behaviors (Kelley, 1988). Thus, Kelley’s typology stressed studying followers within the leadership process, which became the groundwork for the development of numerous definitions of followership. Kelley tried to provide followership an equal depiction to leadership. He presented five categories comprising alienated followers who exhibited negative energy, passive followers who pursued motivation and directions from leaders, as well as conformist followers who were constantly on a leader’s side (Novikov, 2016). There were also exemplary followers who are positive, active, and give independent, helpful criticism and pragmatics followers who uphold the status quo and get on board only until others do. Consequently, Kelley asserted successful followers shared similar indispensable qualities, such as having firm commitments, exercising independence and control without supervision, and being credible, courageous, and ethical (Kelley, 1988). Thus, instead of portraying followership in a negative light, the author underlined the positive scopes of following.
Future Perspective
Nonetheless, the concept of followership is changing. In the 21st century, followership shares more or less of Kelley’s typology and is perceived as the vital, relational, and collective role played by individuals towards organizational failures and successes. However, in the future, the concept would be different and even more similar to leadership comprising constructionist models, behavioral attributes, and traits. It would similarly be characterized by self-resilience, intelligence, enthusiasm, and ambitiousness of followers (Mannion et al., 2015). Additionally, the followership would have various aspects, such as assuming responsibility, and the followers would be expected to execute their duties effectively for themselves and organizations. Thus, they would not be availed security, growth, or permission to take action by their leaders. The aspect of courageous followership would also evolve, and the subordinates would be expected to discover and create opportunities that can exploit a company’s worth and satisfy their perspectives (Mannion et al., 2015). Accordingly, followership states that leadership might deviate in various directions, whether upward or downward, within the pyramid, when followers are involved in the more leading activities.
Conclusion
There are many meanings of leadership and followership. Historically, leadership was defined as an individual’s act of introducing, sustaining, and completing specific goals. Also In the interregnum period and Industrial Revolution era, leadership’s historical definition mainly focused on an individual’s innate ability and power. However, in the post-war era, leadership was separated from an individual and rather became a function. Accordingly, the leadership’s future perspectives will build on the same viewpoint. Northouse, Vugt and Malakyan suggest that leadership will be more servant-like, authentic, spiritual, and adaptive, encourage the free exchange of ideas, and become a concept of dominance. Alternatively, while Kelley, Kellerman and Chaleff indicate that followership was ignored, they suggest that in the future it will become more important than leadership due to cultural and technological changes. Moreover, followership might be equated to leadership, thus offering the subordinates more leadership roles. Therefore, Gilbert and Matviuk emphasize that despite their differences, leadership and followership have an interdependent relationship.
References
Gilbert, J. & Matviuk, S. (2008). “The Symbiotic Nature of the Leader-Follower relationship and Its Impact on Organizational Effectiveness,” Academic Leadership: The Online Journal: 6(4), Article 16. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/alj/vol6/iss4/16
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Platow, M. J. (2015). “Leadership: Theory and practice”. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Group processes. Vol. 2 (pp. 67–94), American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14342-003
Mannion, H., McKimm, J., & O’Sullivan, H. (2015). “Followership, clinical leadership, and social identity”. British Journal of Hospital Medicine, 76(5), 270-274.
Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th Ed.). SAGE.
Novikov, V. (2016). “Followership and performance in acquisition, research and development organizations”. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 9(1), 1-33. https://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/elj/vol9iss1/1ELJ-Novikov.pdf