The roles of followers: an exploratory study of follower roles in a Swedish context

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to draw a more nuanced picture of what characterizes followership in an organization. Design/methodology/approach -This exploratory study including seven depth interviews conducted with Swedish armed forces personnel at various levels -both officers and civilians -on what characterizes followers. Additional two group discussions were conducted with employees; one representing followers and one representing middle management. Findings -The paper provides empirical insights about three follower roles -workmate, colleague, and co-worker and how they correspond to individual-related and organization-related categories. The most prominent feature of the role of workmate is work solidarity. The characteristic of the colleague is professional loyalty. Finally, the co-worker is looked upon as exercising leadership by extension. Research limitations/implications -Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability. Researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further, and to further investigate the relationships between other followers' roles -such as temporary agency worker, flexible worker, and expert. Practical implications -The paper includes implications for the leader-follower relations, first, how management should lead subordinates in an organization. Second, there are ramifications for how followers' work is best organized. Finally, the paper verifies the importance of individual-related categories, not only between leaders and followers, but also between followers. Originality/value -The paper argues that followers should not only be seen in terms of traits or labels, but as the product of relations within organizations. Followers' actions are restrained by the frame of their positions. This has an impact on the development of the followers' roles.

Followership: a review of current and emerging research

“…The importance of understanding the role of followers and following really received significant attention through the research of Kelley (1988Kelley ( , 1992. These two studies are part of the seminal works cited in recent research on followers and followership by various scholars (Carsten et al, 2016;Malakyan, 2015;Uhl-Bien et al, 2014;Crossman and Crossman, 2011;Danielsson, 2013). The quest to understand followers as separate actors in the leadership process, as opposed to a by-product of leadership (Lapierre and Carsten, 2014, p. ix) has led to the emergence of followership research as a distinct field of study, with an acknowledgement that "followers differ in the way in which they define and enact the followership role" (Carsten et al, 2018, p. 731).…”

“…, 2016; Malakyan, 2015; Uhl-Bien et al. , 2014; Crossman and Crossman, 2011; Danielsson, 2013). The quest to understand followers as separate actors in the leadership process, as opposed to a by-product of leadership (Lapierre and Carsten, 2014, p. ix) has led to the emergence of followership research as a distinct field of study, with an acknowledgement that “followers differ in the way in which they define and enact the followership role” (Carsten et al.…”

Co-workership: development of an assessment tool

“…However, looking at the reported content of these three concepts, the differences in relation to existing descriptions of co-workership, appear to be small. Thus, common themes include responsibility, commitment, communication skills, a positive attitude, loyalty, support of the leader and integrity (Baker, 2007; Carsten et al , 2010; Chiaburu et al , 2022; Danielsson, 2013; Gustafsson and Jansson, 2006; Hällsten and Tengblad, 2006; Ifreya et al , 2006; Kilhammar, 2011; Organ, 1997; Van Dyne et al , 1994). For a detailed discussion of similarities and differences between these and other concepts, see Andersson and Tengblad (2007).…”

Leader Normativity in Crisis Management: Tales From a School Fire

“…There is a great deal of focus on leaders, as shown in earlier literature (Bowers, Hall, & Srinivasan, 2017;Hannah, Uhl-Bien, Avolio, & Cavarretta, 2009), but there are also some criticisms of this narrow focus on leadership, as put forward by, e.g., Stern (2017). The topdown perspective of management is especially reflected in crisis management as well as in the management of unexpected events and long-term organizational changes (Danielsson, 2013;Olofsdotter & Sjöstedt Landén, 2014). The idea underlying such a statement is that nothing is accomplished if the leader does not take responsibility for managing the organizational change or leading through the unexpected crisis.…”