Followership: The Often Underestimated Side of Great Leadership

When we talk about successful leadership, we usually think of inspiring leaders, visionary decision-makers, and people-oriented figures at the top of an organization. But leadership is not a one-way street – it arises through the interaction between leaders and followers. This is where the concept of Followership comes in, which long remained in the shadow of leadership research but has recently been recognized as a decisive factor for organizational success.

Followership refers to the behaviors, attitudes, and roles of those being led – the employees. Followers are not passive; rather, they actively contribute to leadership processes and organizational performance. In this article, we explore the concept of followership in depth, analyze its connections to performance, leadership, and health, and provide practical recommendations for organizations.

What Is Followership? – Definition and Origins

Followership describes the active, reflective, and context-dependent role of employees within leadership dynamics. It is not merely about obedience or carrying out instructions, but about co-creating leadership and contributing to the achievement of goals. Two theoretical perspectives have emerged in academic discussions: the role-based approach and Implicit Followership Theories (IFT).

Role-Based Approach: Structured Responsibility

The role-based approach sees followership as a formal role defined by organizational structures. Followers are considered position-holders who carry out specific, expected tasks. This role is functionally defined and based on the assumption that leadership and followership are distinct but complementary domains.

A prominent example is Robert E. Kelley's typology (1988), which classifies followers along two dimensions – critical thinking and engagement. This leads to four types: Alienated, Conformist, Passive, and Effective Followers. The model demonstrates that followership is shaped by formal role expectations.

Another important model within this approach is the "Role-Based Followership" framework by Carsten et al. (2010), which shows how individuals interpret their follower roles differently – as passive executors, supporters, or active contributors – depending on organizational context, leadership style, and personal experience.

Example: In a production company with standardized processes, employees fulfill defined tasks according to hierarchy. A team leader makes decisions that employees efficiently implement. The follower role is clearly delineated and follows rules and expectations.

Implicit Approach: Cognitive Constructs and Expectations

The implicit approach, on the other hand, focuses on perceptions and mental representations of followership. Implicit Followership Theories (IFT) assume that both leaders and employees have certain stereotypes about what constitutes a "good" follower. These notions develop over time through experience, culture, socialization, and communication, and they shape behavior and expectations.

A central model within this approach is the one developed by Sy (2010), which identifies prototypes and anti-prototypes of followers. Prototypes include traits like diligent, enthusiastic, and loyal; anti-prototypes include lazy, unintelligent, or unmotivated. These schemas influence how leaders perceive employees and how employees behave – often unconsciously and irrespective of formal roles.

Example: In an agile software company, employees are expected to take initiative. Without a formal follower role, many staff members act according to the internalized norm: proactively contributing ideas, taking responsibility, and being solution-oriented – not because they have to, but because it is culturally expected.

These two theoretical approaches greatly enrich our understanding of followership. While the role-based model provides the structural framework, implicit theories highlight how deeply rooted assumptions influence behavior – often subconsciously but with significant effect.

Followership, Leadership, Performance, and Health – A Complex Network

Followership is closely interwoven with leadership. Modern leadership models such as Shared Leadership or Transformational Leadership depend on active follower participation. Studies show that effective followership correlates positively with team performance, innovation, and employee satisfaction.

Its connection to mental health should not be underestimated either. Employees who feel impactful, receive feedback, and take responsibility experience more meaningfulness and less stress. Conversely, a lack of active followership can lead to leader overload, role conflicts, and demotivation.

The match between leadership style and followership behavior is also crucial: Authoritarian leadership may demotivate engaged followers, while participative leadership enables them to thrive.

Drivers and Moderators of Followership

What promotes effective followership? Research identifies several central factors (e.g., Carsten et al., 2010; Sy, 2010; Hassan et al., 2020):

• Trust in leadership: Trust is a prerequisite for active followership. Studies show that employees are more willing to take initiative when they perceive their leaders as competent, ethical, and caring (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).

• Psychological safety: According to Edmondson (1999), psychological safety – the belief that one can take risks or make mistakes without fear of negative consequences – is essential for engagement and learning. It fosters critical thinking and followership.

• Organizational culture: Participative and learning-oriented cultures foster followership. Values such as transparency, ownership, and openness encourage co-creation (Schyns & Schilling, 2013).

• Individual traits: Characteristics such as high self-efficacy, internal locus of control, and proactivity are positively associated with followership behavior (Zhu et al., 2019).

• Leadership behavior: Transformational leadership – emphasizing inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration – has been shown to enhance followership (Bass & Riggio, 2006).

Moderating factors:

• Team structure and task complexity: Highly interdependent and complex team environments require strong followership for collaborative problem-solving (Pearce & Conger, 2003).

• History of organizational leadership: Past experiences with authoritarian or laissez-faire leaders can either inhibit or foster followership, depending on whether employees are used to contributing ideas.

The interaction between these drivers and moderators determines whether followership remains reactive or becomes a shaping force within the organization.

Practical Recommendations for Organizations

To actively foster followership, organizations can act on multiple levels:

1. Leadership development: Training should not only focus on leader capabilities but also on enabling followership. Feedback techniques, psychological safety, and participative methods are essential.

2. Culture work: A culture of openness, transparent communication, and flat hierarchies provides a foundation for followership.

3. Structural measures: Feedback loops, participatory decision-making, and innovation workshops can empower followers.

4. Recruiting and onboarding: Selection processes should emphasize personal responsibility and reflective thinking. Onboarding can be used to model and reinforce followership behavior.

5. Evaluation and feedback systems: Not only leaders, but also teams and individuals should receive feedback on their followership quality – in both directions.

Conclusion

Followership is more than compliance – it is an active, critical, and valuable contribution to leadership culture. Recognizing followership means acknowledging that good leadership only works in dialogue. Organizations that foster followership create not only more capable, but also healthier and more resilient teams.

"Leadership is not about being in charge. It's about taking care of those in your charge – and Followership is about choosing to contribute, not just to comply."

Selected References:

• Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership.

• Carsten, M. K., et al. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 543–562.

• Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611–628.

• Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

• Hassan, R., et al. (2020). Ethical leadership and follower outcomes. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 412–422.

• Schyns, B., & Schilling, J. (2013). Bad leaders and their effects. Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 138–158.

• Sy, T. (2010). Implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84.

• Zhu, W., et al. (2019). Transformational leadership and follower characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 383–404.