This study examined the statistical relationship between followership style, and courageous follower attributes, and the influence of followership style on the job satisfaction, on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction. The research premises were that certain followership styles would exhibit more courageous follower attributes than others, and 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 collected 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. Research revealed high dissatisfaction with nature of work and organizational communication and that nearly two thirds of the respondents self-reported as exemplary followers and 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. Research also revealed 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 were that 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. Study limitations,, implications for future research and recommendations for practice are also discussed.

1. 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

2. 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

3. © Terry Fobbs, 2010

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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!
iii

7. 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
iv

8. 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!
v

9. 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
vi

10. 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
vii

11. 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
viii

12. 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
ix

13. 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
x

14. 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).
1

15. 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
2

16. 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
3

17. 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
4

18. 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
5

19. 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
6

20. 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
7

21. 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
8

22. 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
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.
Phase 2: Research Question:
What is the correlation between exemplary, pragmatic, alienated, conformist and
passive followership styles and hotel first line customer-contact employee job
satisfaction?
9

23. 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
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between pragmatic followership style and
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
Alternate Hypothesis 3: There is a correlation between pragmatic followership style and
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
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
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis 5: There is no correlation between conformist followership style and
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
10

24. Alternate Hypothesis 5: There is a correlation between conformist followership style and
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
Null Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between passive followership style and hotel
customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
Alternate Hypothesis 6: There is a correlation between passive followership style and f
hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.
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
11

25. 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
12

26. 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).
13

27. • 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).
14

28. • 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)
15

29. 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
customer-contact employees.
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
16

30. 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)
17

31. 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.
18

32. 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.
19

33. 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
20

34. 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 &
21

35. 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
22

36. 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
23

37. 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).
24

38. 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
25

39. 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
26

40. 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-
27

41. 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,
28

42. 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
29

43. 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
30

44. 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
31

45. 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).
32

46. 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
33

47. 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).
34

48. 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,
35

49. 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
36

50. 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
37

51. 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
38

52. 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-
39

53. 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
40

54. 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
41

55. 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
42

56. 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
43

57. 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,
44

58. 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
45

59. 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).
46