Submitting to the Follower Label

Abstract

Although the importance of followership has been discussed in organizational literature, negative connotations attached to the follower label persist, including followers’ lack of ability and power. In two studies, we found evidence for negative effects of the follower label. Participants who were labeled a follower (Study 1), or self-labeled as followers in their jobs (Study 2), reported lower positive affect, and in turn, fewer extra-role behaviors. These findings suggest that followers might be at risk for reinforcing their negative stereotypes by avoiding opportunities to show their abilities and demonstrate their independence. Recommendations for leaders and opportunities for future research are discussed.

Top-down or shared leadership? Examining differences in athlete leadership behaviours based on leadership status in sport

“…From organizational psychology we know that followers are associated with having less responsibilities than leaders (Vanderslice, 1988) and that they are viewed and feel less important than those who occupy leadership roles (Hoption, Christie, & Barling, 2012). However, what the above results fail to indicate is whether athletes (leaders and followers) engage in similar or different amounts of leadership behaviours contingent on their leadership role (status).…”

“…Benson, Hardy, & Еys, 2016) до данас није било истраживања која су испитивала улогу следбеника у спорту. Из орга-низационе психологије знамо да следбеници имају мање одговорности од лидера (Vаnderslicе, 1988) као и да се посматрају и осећају мање важним од оних који заузимају лидерске улоге (Hoption, Christie, & Barling, 2012). Међутим, оно што горе наведени резултати нису успели да покажу је да ли се спортисти (лидери, следбеници) ангажују у сличним или различитим облицима лидерских по-нашања зависно од њихове лидерске улоге (стату-са).…”

“…Given that research has reported athlete leaders, regardless of formal/informal status, are beneficial as they provide support to teammates as well as seek input from teammates (Crozier et al, 2013), it was hypothesized that frequency of Social Support, Positive Feedback, and Democratic Behaviour would not differ based on athlete leader status, such that these behaviours are shared similarly among athlete leaders. Last, as there is evidence in organizational literature that followers view themselves as having less responsibilities (Vanderslice, 1988) and are less important than leaders (Hoption et al, 2012) it was predicted that followers may engage in leadership behaviours to a lesser extent than athlete leaders. However, as there is a paucity of research in sport examining followers, no a priori hypotheses were advanced for which specific leadership behaviours would differ from those of the athlete leaders.…”

Approaching Leadership With a Follower Focus

“…Active followership emphasizes the ways in which followers encourage and challenge leaders, and demonstrate independent thought and critical thinking (see Chaleff, 1995;Kelley, 1992); essentially, active followership amounts to effective followership. However, Hoption et al (2012) point out that both scholars and practitioners are unaccustomed to thinking about followership as a skill. As a result, the idea that there are varying qualities of followership upon which we can judge effectiveness is somewhat of a foreign concept.…”

The Review of the Implicit Followership Theories (IFTs)

“…The eastern countries believe that excellent followers should have the qualities of respect for authority, devotion and loyalty. Hoption et al (2012) pointed out that respect for authority and obedience to authority in western culture is regarded as a characteristic of negative following archetype. Holzinger et al (2006) the cross-cultural study shows that the cultural differences in the country will affect the construction of the individ-S. L. Guo ual implicit followership prototype.…”