LEADERSHIP UNIT 4 ESSAYPLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN DETAIL.I HAVE ATTACHED THE BJUGSTAD, THACH, AND THOMPSON ARTICLE ANDPROVIDED THE 2 REQUIRED SOURCES FROM THE CSU LIBRARY THAT ARE TOBE USED A REF

A Fresh Look at Follow ership: A Model for Matching Follow ers hip and Leadership St yles Kent Bjugstad Comcast Spotlight Elizabeth C. Thach, Karen J. Thompson, and Alan Morris Sonoma State University ABST RACT Followership has been an understudied topic in the academic literature and an underappreciated topic among practitioners. Although it has always been important, the study of followership has become even more crucial with the advent of the information age and dramatic changes in the workplace. This paper provides a fresh look at followers hip by providing a synthesis of the literature and presents a new model for matching followership styles to leadership styles. The model’s practical valu e lies in its usefulness for describing how leaders can best work with followers , and how followers can best work with leaders.

Introduction Followership has been an understudied disci pline. As far back as 1933, management scholar Mary Parker Follett advocated more research into a to\ pic that she stated was “of the utmost importa nce, but which has been far too little considered, and that’s the part of followers…” (1949, p. 41). The lack of attention in researching followers has changed little since Follett deli\ vered her call to arms over 70 years ago. While so me scholars are beginning to look more closely at followership, this trend is less evident in the mainstream business world. A book search on the Amazon. com website revealed 95,220 titles devoted to leadership (Bjugs tad, 2004). Bjugstad’s sear ch on followership found just 792 titl es, and the majority of thos e books focused on either spiritual or politic al followership. Overall, the rati o of leadership to follo wership books was 120:1. The lack of research and emphasis on followers hip relative to leadership in the business world is ironic consideri ng that the two are so intertwined. One of the reasons follower s haven’t been researched is that there is a stigma associated with the term “follower .” Fo llower ship may be defined a s the ability to effectively follow the directives and support the efforts of a leader to maximize a structured organization. However, the te rm “followership” is often linked to negative and demeaning words like passive , weak, and conforming. According to Alcorn (1992), followers have been system atically dev alued and, for many, the very word itself conjures up unfavorable images. This stereotype has caused people to avoid being categorize d as followers. Research done by Williams and Miller (200 2) on more than 1,600 exec ut ives across a wide range of industries indic ated that over one-thir d of all exec utives are fo llowers in some fashion. Yet, rarely did any of the executiv es concede th at they were followers. The statement © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 304 “Always be a leader, never a follower!” has gone a long way toward adding to the stigma of being a follo wer. Another reason there is so little res earch on followership arises from a misconception that leadership is more important than followership. The assumption that good followership is si mply doing what one is told, and that effective task accomplishment is the resu lt of good leadership, doesn’t amplify the merits of the follower role. A ccording to Meindl (1987), management and organizational behav ior have been dominated by the concept of leadership, which has assumed a romanticized, la rger than life role as a result. Organizational literature is fu ll of studies of leadership c haracteristics, reflecting the belief that good or bad leader ship larg ely explains or ganizational outcomes. In spite of its obvious relevanc e to leadership, followership is rarely discussed when corporations seek to better them selves. Instead, the focus turns to develo ping leadersh ip skills. Much att ention is paid to what makes a leader successful because the thinking is that as the leader succeeds, so does the organization. However, this view ignores the fact that leaders need followers to accomplish their goals.

It does seem ironic that the effectivene ss of a leader is to a great extent depend ent on the willingness an d consent of the follo wers. Without follower s, there can be no leader s. Indeed, H ansen (1987) advanced that active followership means the leader’s aut hority has been accepted which gives legitimacy to the direction and vis ion of the leader. Without the eyes, ears, minds, and hearts of followers, leaders cannot function effectively. Similarly, Depree (1992) asserted that leaders only really accom plish something by permission of the followers. Changes in the workplace also highlight the need for examining followership in more depth. The traditiona l organizational hi erarchy between leaders and their followers has eroded over time thanks to expanding social networ ks and the growing e m powerment of followers th rough their ability to access i nformation more easily (Cross & P arker, 2004; Brown, 2003). For example, employees no w have acces s to information about thei r company and its competitors via the Internet that they were never privy to in the past. As B rown (2003 ) observed, leaders are “no longer the exclus ive sour ce of vital information about their companies or fields; therefore they can no longer expec t to be followed blindly by their now well-informed, more skeptical rank s” (p. 68). Furthermore, the incidents at such companies as Enr on, Worl dCom, and Adelphia have led followers to question and distrust top l eaders hip. Mergers, acquisitions, and downs izing have also accounted for more jaded followers. In addition, Maccoby (2004) stated that “the changing s tructur e of families – more single- parent homes, dual working parents, and so on - have begun to create w ork environments where people valu e traditional leaders less” (p. 79). Perhaps this coincides with the decline in respect for authority figures in gener al. Whatever the reason, these changes signal the need to reevaluat e the tendency to focus on leaders hip to the excl usion of followership. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 305 Many lead ers have realize d that develo ping their followers’ skills is critical for creating high performance or ganizations. These developmental a pproaches come with a variety of names – total quality management, team building, quality of work life, job enrichment, reengi neering, empowerment, management by objectives, etc. Lawrence and Nohria (2002) stated that organizations that fail to develop their workforces may not be compet itive in the future. As the cost of intellectual capital incr eases , it is critical to have a supply of talented followers (Citrin, 2002). The old saying, “People ar e our most important asset” has never been more true. While the industrial age was characte rized by a rigid command-and-control structure, the advent of the informat ion age has highlighted the need for more flexible leader-follower relationships. These changes have made the stu\ dy of followership increasingly necess ary as or ganizations s eek new ways to select, train, and lead followers for maximum product ivity. Flexibility is a key ingredient for both leaders and followers when it comes to their overall approach to work. This paper aims to rei gnite the dialogue on followership and provid e some practical applications of followership. Fi rst, we will review the current literature on followership. Then, we will ac quaint the reader with two current models: one of followership and on e of leadership. Finally, these distinct models will be us ed as the basis for a new hybrid model t hat integrates lea dership styles and followership styles. This integrated model proposes how leaders a nd followers can best work together.

Review of the Follo wership Lite rature The literature on followership can be ca tegorized into three broad theoretical areas. These areas examine follower moti vations, follower values and trust, and the characteristics of effectiv e and ineffective followers. Follo wer Motivations A follower ’s motivation is a function of env ironmental and inter nal factors. To increase follower motivation, a company needs to create a results-oriented environment with genuine concern for it s followers and provide per formance- related feedback. Today’s follower-leader re lationships show that followers want trust and are not motivated by what leaders think they would want, but rather by what each specific follower wants (Bai n, 1982). Accordi ng to Hughes (1998), followers motivate themselves. Motiva tion is generated internally, and a leader merely taps into the internal power of the follower. When a leader communicates trust and respect for followers’ abilities to perform and achieve, the internal motivation of the followers takes over and drives them to succeed. Followers determine their commitment to the organizat ion (and therefore their motivation) by reflecting on how hard they will work, what type of recognitio n or reward they might receive, and if that rewa rd will be worth it (Strebel, 1996). Motivation may also depend on the relati onship between the follower and leader and how well their personal char acteristics ma tch up. If there is a similarity in © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 306 values and beliefs between the followe r and leader, the motivational need for empowerment may not be as high because the follower is driven by the bond with the leader (Mumford, Dansereau, & Yammarino, 2000). The research on charismatic leadership suggests that follower s’ self-concepts may also be relevant in determining their moti vati ons to follow certain leaders (Howell and Shamir, 2005). A key to motivating followers is the conc ept of having them r ealiz e how important their function is in a broad sense. Bl anchard and Bowles (1998) relate the story of what was considered a meaningless job – dishwashing at a college cafeteria: “Dishwas hing in a college cafeteria – it just doesn’t get more important than that…think of the impact those students were going to have on the world. Business leaders , doctors, social scientists, world leaders, researchers. One load of unclean, bacteria-infected dishes could have wiped out a whole clas s. Look at it in terms of human impact…Students arrived tired, hungry, and likely lonely. You were an important part of the c hain that provided joy and nourishment… What a wonderful gift to give another human being…” (p. 33). Of course, some followers are m otivated primarily by ambition. According to Kelley (1988), this type of person only uses followership to further his or her own ambitions. Springboarding off of Vroom’s ex pectancy theory (1964), Green (2000) discussed three condit ions that must exist for followers to be highly motivated. First, they must have the c onfidence that they can do t he job expected of them. Then, trust is needed in their leader to ti e outcomes to performance. Lastly, the followers need satisfaction with the outcome(s ) they receive. If performance falls short, there is a good probabilit y that one of these three conditions is not being fully met. Common causes for a followe r’s lack of confidence (“I can’t do it”) could be in adequate s kills, or unrealistic or unc lear exp ectations. More training and the clarification of expectations are two w ays to handle these problems. Tying outc omes to performance can easily solve the second condition. If the outcomes aren’t satisfying to followers becau se they aren’t finding the work itself rewarding, it might be worth investigati ng whether that position is matching the skills, interests, and needs of both the follower and the leader.

Follower Values and Trust Values are instrumental in determining foll ower preferences for different types of leaders. Followers’ v alues, in addition to other personal characteristics, can influenc e both their own effectiveness and the climate in whic h they work (Hanges, Offerman, & Day, 2001). Followers and leader s work together better when they are comfortable with each ot her, and value c ongruence is one way to achieve common ground. When leaders effe ctively model their values, identity, emotions, and goals to their followers, t he potential for authentic follo wership increases (Gardner et al., 2005). © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 307 Along these lines, Ehrhart and Klei n (2001) examined the follower-leader relationship to determine the influence of values and personality. The results indic ated that (1) followers had different responses to the same leader behaviors, and (2) followers look ed for leaders whose values matched their own. Followers who were achievement -oriented and risk take rs preferred the charismatic leader, as did followers who liked to parti cipate in decision making. According to Ehrhart and Klein, charismatic leaders helped foll owers satisfy their need for involvem ent and accomplishment by letting followers take an active role in dec ision making. Followers who valued interpersonal relations matched up with relationship- oriented leaders who could meet some of their interpersonal needs. Followers who valued achievement and structure were the best match for task-oriented leaders, because they provided stability and security. The foundation of a productive follower-leade r relationship is mutual trust. In a healthy organization, followers trust leaders to act in their best interest. In a three-year survey of 7, 500 workers, Froggatt (2001) fo und that companies with employees who reported high lev els of tr ust in their leaders had a 108 percent three-year return to shareholders. Conversely, companies with employees reporting low trust levels in leadersh ip only had a 66 percent return. Effective Follo wers versus Ineffective Follo wers A few researchers have examined the charac teristics of followers in an attem pt to pinpoint what distinguishes good follo wers from bad ones. Kelley (1988) proposed that there are four essential qualities that effe ctive followers share. First, effective followers manage themselves well. This quality refers to the ability to determine one’s own goals withi n a large context and to decide what role to take at any given time. Secondly, effective fo llowers are committed to the organization and to a purpose beyond themselv es. Thirdly, effecti ve follower s build their competence and focus their effo rts for maximum impact. They strive to reach higher levels of performance and expand themselves. Finally, effective followers are courageous, honest, and credi ble. This implies and requires indep ende nt and critical thinkin g skills as we ll as the ability to feel comfortable with others. Kelley als o stated that an effective follower ex hibits enthusiasm, intelligenc e, and self-reliance. One of the most important characteristics of an effective follower may be the willingness to tell the truth. As the quantity of available information has increas ed exponentially, it has become imperative that fo llowers provide truthful information to their leaders. Good followers speak up even to the point of disagreeing with their leader s. According to Bennis (2000), the irony is that the follower who is encouraged and is willing to speak out shows what kind of leadership the company has instituted. This tendency to speak up was also supported in research of followership and federal workers (Gilbert & Hyde, 1988). Not only is it important for the organi zation to know what follo wers think, but effective leaders als o need to respect followers w ho will speak up and share their points of view rather than withhold information. I neffective followers fail to give honest opinions. They cover up problems and are inclined to become ‘y es men.’ If a © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 308 company is going down the wrong road, it can get there faster if there are no followers informing the leaders t hat they took a wrong turn. Chaleff (1995) claims that effective followers are cooperative and collaborative, qualities that are essential to all hum an progress. They think for and manage themselves and carry out duties with a ssertiveness and energy. For example, champions hip-level sports teams are composed of followers who know when to follow the game plan and when to innovate and think for themselves. Eff\ ective followers are well-balanced and respons ible human resources who can succeed without strong leaders hip becaus e they are committed to a purpose, principle, or person outside themselves. Kelley’s ( 1988) research also found that many followers believ e they offer as much value to organizations as leaders do. Effective followers are di stinguishable from ineffe ctive follo wers by their enthusiasm and self-reliant participation in the pursuit of organizational goals. According to Blackshear (2003), “the ‘i deal’ follower is willing and able to help develop and sustain the best organizational performance” (p. 25). Ineffective followers are often criti cal, cynical, apat hetic, and alienated; m any will only do what is specifically requested of them. Instead of figuring out what they can do, ineffective followers focus on what can go wrong and what is beyond thei\ r control (Helmstetter, 1998). They tend to doubt t hemselves and, because they dwell on problems rather than solutions, they most often see their fears materialize. According to Nelson (2001), they becom e experts at the “the blame game,” blaming ev erybody around them for problem s. These attitudes gradually spread to other departments, and the result is low morale, lack of production, and lost human potential (Ludin & Lancas ter, 1990). Models of Follow ers hip and Leadership To bring together the research on fo llowership and leadership, a model was chosen from each area. The first model is Kelley ’s (1992) followers hip model which categorizes followers according to dimensions of thinking and acting. The second model is drawn from Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) situational leadership theory which categorizes leader ship style based on the degree of relationship-oriented and task-oriented beha vior display ed by the leader. Kelley’s Mo del of Follo wership Kelley (1992) categorized followers accord ing to the di mensions of thinking and acting. Followers who are independent, crit ical thinkers consider the impact of their actions, are willin g to be creative and innovative, and may offer criticism. Dependent , uncritical thinkers only do what they are told and accept the leader’s thinking. The second dimension, acting, is used to determine what sense of ownership the follower demonstrates. An active follower takes initiative in decision making, while a passive follower’ s involvement is limited to being told what to do. Despite the fact that Kelley created five di fferent subsets of followers with the fifth subset (pragmatists) encom passing some of the characteristics of the other four, this analysis will only use the standard four- quadrant subset based © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 309 on Kelley’s definitions (Figur e 1). This will enable the us e of clear-cut distinctions between follower types.

The following is a summary of the behaviora l characteristics of the four follower types (from Kelley, 1992): Alienated f ollo wers are mavericks who have a healthy skepticism of the organization. They are capable, but cynical. Conformist fo llo wers are the “yes people” of the or ganizations. They are very active at doing the organizatio n’s wo rk and will active ly follo w orders. Passive follow ers rely on leader s to do the thinking for them. They also require constant direction. Exemplar y follow ers are independent, innovative , and willing to question leadership. This type of follower is critic al to organizational succes s. Exemplary followers know how to work well with other cohorts and present themselves consistently to all who come into contact with them.

Figure 1: Kelley ’s differe nt t ypes of follow ers Source: Kelley (1992) Independent, critical thinking Passive Active Dependent, uncritical thinking This model may seem to impose some artifi cial rigidity on follower behavior, but followers typically can move from one quadr ant to another just as leaders’ styles can vary depending on the situation. It is typical to think of leaders as having a dominant style, and we will assume that to be true for followers also. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 310 Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leaders hip Theory Hersey and Blanchard’s (1982) situati onal leadership theory argued that successful leadership is achieved by selecting a style based on follo wer readiness. The leader is directed to adopt one of four styles based on the degree of relations hip- and task-oriented beh av ior required by the situation. For the purposes of this paper, the four st yles will be vie wed as static within the quadrants of this two dimens ional model, although they are often treated as a continuum of sorts (Fi gure 2). The four leadership st yles consist of Telling, Selling, Par ticipati ng, and Delegating. The following is a summary of the four leadership styles developed by Hersey and Blanchard (Hersey, 1984): Telling should be use d in situatio ns in which followers lack the training, confidence, or desire to complete a task. The theory re commends that task- oriented leader behav iors should predominat e in this case. Leaders need to direct followers down the right path by giving them detai led directions and monitoring their performance. Selling is the style to use with followers who are confident and willing, but who are not able to complete the task. Hi gh levels of both task- and relations hip- oriented behaviors are recommended in this situation. Leaders can guide follower behavior by clarifying dec isions and givin g followers the chance to ask questions. Participating should be used to boost the motivation of followers who have the capabilities to achieve goals, but w ho lack c onfidence in themselves. Relationship-oriented leader ship predominat es in this case. Leaders encourage followers to participate in decisions and support their efforts.

Delegating is the style to use when followers are able, confident, and motivated. \ Only low levels of relationship- and task- oriented behav iors are called for in thi s case as the follower is so self-directed. The l eader can turn over responsibility to the follower in terms of what to do and how to do it. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 311 Figure 2: Hersey an d Blanchard’s Situational Leadership Quadrants Source: Hersey and Blanchard (1982) Low Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ High Selling Participating Relationship behavior Telling Delega ting Task behavior Lo w Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ High © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 312 An Integrated Model of Follow ership and Leadershi p St yles The final goal in this paper is to int egrate the two models described above. The idea is to show how followership and l eadership research can be combined for practical purposes, most specifically to increase follower productivity. Simply overlaying Kelley’s four quadrants from Figure 1 onto Hersey and Blanchard’s model in Figure 2 doesn’t provide maximum productivity because a pass\ ive follower will not excel with a dele gating lea der. Along those same lines, an exemp lary follower does not need a sellin g type of leader. By interchanging these two quadrants, however, as shown in Figure 3, the roles of both the leader and the follower can be maximized.

Figure 3: Integrated model of follo wership and leadership st yles Low Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ High The participating style , in which a leader sha res ideas and facilitate s the decision making process, seems to fit best with al ienat ed followers. The idea is to get these disillusioned followers to take a mo re active role, so they feel more involv ed in the organiz ation. Alienated followers are capable, but need more consideration to create mutual respect and trust and to eliminate some of thei r cynicism. The selling style is arguably a good match for the passive follower, who needs direction and guidanc e. With the leader’s support, passive followers can enhance their production, as well as receive encouragement. Conformist followers with their “will do as told” a ttitude can be plac ed in the telling style quadrant, which char acterizes a leadership style that focuses on providing specific ins tructions and closely monito ring performance. Exemplary follower s can be positioned in the delegating style quadrant where the leader turns over Relationship behavior Participating Selling Tellin g De lega ting Lo w Æ Æ Æ Æ Æ Hi gh Task behavior © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 313 responsibility for decisions and implementat ion. Exemplary followers are up to the challenge of this category and s hould flourish to the benefit of the organization. By meshing the styles of leaders and followers, organizations c an maximize t he strengths and minimize the weaknesses of leader-follower relationships. Figure 4 displays recommended behavior s for leaders and followers in each quadr ant of the new model. Followership plays a vital role at every level of an organization. Furthering the effectiveness of followers requires doi ng away with the misconception that leaders do all of the thinking and followers merely carry out commands. These misconceptions can become self-fulfilli ng prophecies and organizat ions can rely too much on leaders. This model prov ides the framework to alleviate those misconceptions. As the model indicates, followers engage in different levels of critical thinking, and these can be matched with appropriate leaders. Furthermore, in each quadrant, there needs to be some flexibility for both the leader and the follower . This stretching w ill c ause growth for the individ uals a nd for the organization.

Figure 4: Behaviors recommended for optimum matching of sty les Leadershi p Quadrant Leader Behaviors Recommended Follow er B ehaviors Recommended Follow ers hip Quadrant Participatin g The inclus ion of followers in decision making to cause alie nated follo wers to take ownership Becoming more involv ed through participation. Changing insider vs.

outsider mindset. Alie nated Selling Explaining decisions and clarifying expectations to engage passive followers. Doing as requested.

Passive Telling Detailing expectations and monitoring performance to direct conformist followers. Showing that results are important. Conformist Dele gating Turning ov er decision making responsibility and implement ation. Demonstrating results with increased responsibility. Exemplary © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 314 Discussio n and App lication As we hav e seen, the follower-leader rela tionship does not operate in a vacuum. Leaders sometimes function as followers, and followers sometimes function as leaders. As leaders daily move back and fo rth between the two rol es, this makes it even more imperative that the study of followership continues. Followers and leaders are linked together in interrel ated roles and are dependent on each other. Clearly, the importance of followers cannot be underestimated. While organizations continue to devote ti me and money to the developm ent of leadership, followership is what enables that leadership the opportunity to succeed. The legendary UCLA basketbal l coach, John Wooden, is quoted by Buckingham and Coffman (1999) as saying… “No matter how you total success in the coaching profes sion, it all comes down to a single factor – talen t. There may be a hundred gr eat coaches of whom you have never heard…who will never receive the acclaim they deserve simply because they have not been blessed with t he talent. Although not every coach can win consistently with talent, no coach can win without it” (p. 105). This passage speaks about team sports, but the theme of “talent” is analogous to followers in an organiz ation. Creati ng the right environ ment and developing followers into high performers sho uld be a primary objective of every organization. This argument is suppor ted by research that has examined follower effectiveness in relation to situationa l favorabilit y (Miller, B utler, and Cosentino, 2004). Building relations with followers fosters the highest level of organizatio nal commitment (Ellis, 2004), which helps to create a unified organization. Also, organizational commi tment is positively related to job productivity and negatively related to bot h absenteeism and turnover (Robbin s, 2005). The integrated model of followership and l eadership styles can be applied an d matched to fit different organizational cultur es and goals. Organizations may tend to have certain predominant leader and/ or follower types, and so the specific organizatio n will hav e to fi t the tw o types together. It may be useful for organizations to experiment with the diffe rences between the various types of leader and follower for short periods of time to observe productivity levels. Once that information has been analyz ed, it should guide future research on how best to continue matching leader and follower styl es. The optimal way to test how the integrated model would benefit the organizat ion is to conduct the research in a controlled environment where all the variabl es are equal. This application of the model can then be better examined for t he appropriate matching of particular styles. There may be an instance, for ex ample, where a follower with dominant conformist characteristics might be more productive wit h a leader who exhibit s strong selling attributes, inst ead of the traits of a telli ng leadership style. The model is flexible enough to allow for adj ustments in the match-ups of followers and leaders.

© 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 315 Limitations of the Model While this integrated model of followers hip and leadership styles makes sense from an intuitive standpoint, there is littl e evidence to support it. Research will need to be done to test its propositions. Also, while lead ers and followers often have a dominant style, they do not tend to use one style in all situations. Thus, the environment can skew the result s of the quadrant match-ups that we propose. Furthermore, the matching of l eaders and followers does not imply that leaders will only hire followers who work and think in their own image to make them feel more comfortable (Chatm an, 1991). It does, however, raise the possib ility of groupthink (Janis, 1982). Having either differing viewpoints or similar styles, however, has not revealed any consistent effects on performance (Lau & Murnighan, 1998). With that in mi nd, this model needs to be implemented and studied further to validate the projected i ncrease in productivity. Another issue in the future study of matc hing followers to leaders is to isolate the variables th at might alter the results. For example, will a ll lea ders be given the same type of direction in working with followers and vice-versa? All of this research can come at a cost to organiza tion s that are not willing to risk possible short-term pains for long-term gai ns. CONCLUS ION This paper and the matching of followership and leaders hip styles reinforce themes identified in the literature on the relationshi ps between followers and leaders (Cole, 1999; Goffee & J ones, 2001; Chaleff, 1 995; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Hanges et al ., 2001; Mumford et al., 2000). By implementing an integrated model of follo wership and leadership styles, as well as linking the purpose to strategic or ganizational goals, leaders should become more effective becaus e of their i m pr oved understanding of t he follower-leader relationship. In addition, the increased commitment of followers should result in a talent bank for future leaders as follo wers are mentored by the leader in learning to match styles in working relations hips. This paper provides a model that can satisfy the exchange bet ween t he leader and follower, resulting in a match that can provide more gratificat ion to the parties involved and set the stage for hi gher performance. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 316 REFE RE NCES Alcorn, D.S. (1992). Dynamic follo wership: Empowerment at work. Management Quarterly , 33 , 9-13. Bain, D. (1982). The productivity prescription . New York: McGraw-Hill. Bennis, W. (2000). Managing the dream: Reflecti ons on leadership and change . Cambridge, MA: Pers eus Books. Bjugstad, K. (2004). In ternet Book Search on Leadership and Followership. Retrieved October 15, 2004, from http://www.amazon.com.html . Blackshear, P.B. (200 3). The followe rship c ontinuum: A model for fine tuning the workforce. Public Manager , 32(2) , 25. Blanchard, K., & Bowles, S. (1998). Gung ho ! New York: William Morrow and Company.

Brown, A. (2003). The new follo wership: A challenge for leaders. Futurist , 37 , 68.

Buckingham, M., & C offman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Chatman, J.A. (1991). Ma tching people and organizations. Administrative Science Q uarterly , 36 , 459-484. Citrin, J.M. (2002). Zoom . New York: Doubleday Publishing. Cole, M. (1999). Become the leader followers want to follow. Sup ervision , 60 , 9- 11. Cross, R., and Park er, A. (2004). The Hidden Power of Social Net works . Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Cunningham, J.B., & MacG regor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work: Complementary constructs in sati sfaction and performance. Huma n Relatio ns, 53 , 1575-1591. DePree, M. (1992). Leadership jazz . New York: Doubleday Publishing. Ehrhart, M.G., & Klein, K. J. (2001). Predicting fo llower’s preferences for charismatic leadership: The influence of follower values and personality. Leadership Quarterly , 12 , 153-179 Ellis, C. (2004). Leaders who inspire commitment. MIT Sloan Management Revie w, 45 , 5. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 317 Follett, M.P . (1949). The essentials of leadership. London: Management Publications Trust, Ltd. Froggatt, C .C. (2001). Work naked . San Fra ncisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R., Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-bas ed model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly , 16 , 343-372. Gilbert, R.G., & Hyde A.C. (1988). Follower ship and the federal worker. Public Administration Rev iew , 48 , 962-968. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2001). Fo llowership: It’s personal, too. Harvard Business Review , 79 , 148. Green, T. (2000). Motivation management . Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Hanges, P., Offerman, L., & Day, D. (2001). Leaders, follo wers and values: Progress and prospec ts for theory and research. Leadership Quarterly , 12 , 129- 131.

Hansen, T.L. Jr. (1987) . Management’s impact on first line supervisor effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal , 52 , 41-45. Helmstetter, S. (1998). The self talk solutio n. New York: Pocket Books. Hersey, P. (1984). The manage ment of organizatio nal behavior: Utilizing human resources . Escondido, CA: Center for Leadership Studies. Hersey, P. and Blan chard, K. (1982). Management of Organiza tional Behav ior : Utiliz ing Hu man Resou rces . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Howell, J.M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: R elations hips and their consequences. Academy of Management Review , 30(1) , 96-112. Hughes, M.L. (1998). Keeping your job while your bosses are losin g theirs . Bing hamton, NY: William Neil Pu blish ing. Janis, I.L. (1982). Groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Kelley, R. (1992). The power of fo llowership. New York: Doubleday. Kelley, R.E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review , 66 , 142- 148.

Lau, D.C., & Murnighan, J.K. (1998). Demographic div ersity and faultlines. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 325-340. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 318 Lawrence, P.R., & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How human nature shapes our choices . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Ludin, S., & Lancaster, L. (1990). Beyond leadership…the importance of followership. Futurist , 24 , 18-24. Maccoby, M. (2004). The pow er of transference. Harvard Busines s Review , 82, 76-85.

Meindl, J.R. (1987). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly , 30 , 91-108. Miller, R.L., Butler, J., & Co sentin o, C.J. (2004). Followership effectiveness: An extens ion of Fiedler’s contingency model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 25(3/4) , 362-368. Mumford, M.D., Dansereau, F., & Yammarino, F.J. (20 00). Followers, motivations and levels of analysis: The case of individualized leader ship. Leadership Quarterly , 11 , 313-340. Nelson, B. (2001). Please don’t just do what I tell you . New York: Hyperion. Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review , 74 , 86-92. Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation . New York: John Wile y. Williams, G.A., & Mille r, R.B. (2002). Change the way you persuad e. Harvard Business Review , 80 , 65-73. © 2006 In stitute of Behavioral an d Appl ied Mana gem ent. All Rights Re se rved. 319