Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers

Exercises, Activities and Simulations

Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers

Journal of Management Education Volume 33 Number 6 December 2009 699-724 © 2009 The Author(s) 10.1177/1052562908330726 http://jme.sagepub.com

An Experiential Exercise Robin Sronce Drury University

Lucy A. Arendt University of Wisconsin–Green Bay

Classroom discussions of leadership often neglect the essential role of followers. These discussions do little to address the reality of our students’ predominant roles as followers within organizations. We describe the Origami Frog exercise, an experiential exercise that enables students to discover how follower behaviors impact group process and outcomes. Students are asked to play either leader or follower roles, and followers are asked to exhibit either Effective or Passive follower behaviors. Predictably, different follower roles interact with leader behaviors to yield different consequences. The Origami Frog exercise is complex enough that followers can significantly influence results and yet simple enough that the exercise and its relevant pre- and postdiscussion can be accomplished in a 50-min class. Keywords: followers; leaders; followership; leadership; experiential learning

any management classes spend significant time describing leadership and the critical role played by leaders. By contrast, minimal attention may be given to followership and the critical role played by followers. Yet the role of follower is likely to occupy the greater and perhaps most satisfying part of our students’ careers. The academic focus on leadership and

M

Authors’ Note: First and foremost, we are grateful to our students for their enthusiasm for experiential learning and willingness to participate in the Origami Frog exercise. Next, we thank our colleagues at the 2008 OBTC who participated in our session and gave wonderful feedback on how the exercise might be enhanced. Finally, we appreciate the extensive feedback and direction provided by three anonymous peer reviewers on earlier drafts of this article. Address correspondence to Robin Sronce, Breech School of Business Administration, Drury University, 900 North Benton Avenue, Springfield MO 65802; e-mail: [email protected].

699

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY on July 20, 2015

700

Journal of Management Education

leaders is not surprising. After all, society has long been intrigued by the “romantic” notion of leadership (Meindl, 1990; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). Employers want to hire leaders, students want to be leaders, and instructors want to “make” leaders. Many management theories focus on leaders, with followers playing often vaguely described background roles relative to the leader’s foreground role (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). This one-sided focus on leaders as the principal actors tends to overemphasize the leader’s responsibility for task achievement and reduce the responsibility of followers. We argue that students deserve a realistic preview of their likely dominant role in organizations, and how they as followers will have both the opportunity and the responsibility to affect organizational outcomes. When lectures on the importance of followership occur, they are delivered to a group of students who have been primed for leadership by society, family, friends, and educators. All signs point to the essential role played by leaders. Leaders get accolades, rewards, and status. Society, organizations, universities, and textbooks do not pay much visible attention to followers. By the time they reach our classrooms, students have developed strong implicit theories about leaders and followers. Implicit theories, whether they are about leaders and followers or some other topic, tend to be both highly stable over time and inaccurate (Dewey, 1897). Before students can think about leaders and followers as interdependent actors who share responsibility for group process and outcomes, we must confront their implicit theories. Otherwise, they dutifully write down what we say and then proceed to forget that we said it. Overcoming preexisting and internalized beliefs requires we that “unfreeze” and “transition” students’ attitudes toward followership, to borrow the words and concept from Lewin (1951). If Glasser (1998) is correct, then the best route to helping students learn may be to engage them in experiential learning. After all, experience helps us to learn four times more than what we hear and eight times more than what we read (Glasser, 1998). These assertions are consistent with how implicit theories are developed—over time and based on experience. Using activities to demonstrate a concept is not new to management education. Kolb and Kolb (2005) described experiential learning as “an idealized learning cycle or spiral where the learner touches all the bases—experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting—in a recursive process that is responsive to the learning situation and what is being learned” (p. 194). To provide this type of learning environment, instructors are incorporating activities, movies, and games to supplement and sometimes replace the traditional classroom lecture. These teaching methods encourage student engagement and allow


Sronce, Arendt / Interplay of Leaders and Followers

701

them to “discover” important insights (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). In Creating Significant Learning Experiences, Fink (2003) advised college instructors to incorporate more experiential learning. According to Fink, “the single most powerful change most teachers can make in their courses is to expand the experiential dimension of student learning” (p. 111). In terms of learning about leadership and followership, students may not want to acknowledge their role as followers or the importance of followers. If an instructor asks students, “Who wants to be a leader?” most students’ hands will go up. If the same instructor asks, “Who wants to be a follower?” few or no student hands may go up. For many, being a follower has negative connotations. Discussing the responsibility followers have for goal outcomes can raise students’ awareness but is not enough to change their attitudes or implicit theories. Experiential learning may be one way to make significant changes in attitudes (Johnson & Johnson, 1982). We believe that demonstrating leadership and followership in a classroom requires a task that is both simple and complex. The origami activity we describe is simple enough that the point can be reached in a class period, and yet it provides enough complexity that working together increases the chances of an effective outcome. Origami, the Japanese art of paper folding, transforms paper through a series of sequenced folds into a work of art, often animals. Origami shapes range from simple to exceedingly complex. Origami has been used to teach a variety of topics in science, math, technology, and production management (Griffin, 1997; Lang, 2008). We start with a brief review of the literature on leaders and followers. Our goal is to point out the dominance of information on the role of leaders and the lesser emphasis on followers, rather than to review all existing leadership literature. We describe the role of leaders and followers as they are typically described in management courses and identify opportunities for clarifying the critical role of followers. Then, we describe an origami exercise that instructors may use to demonstrate the interdependent roles played by leaders and followers, with emphasis placed on the direct effect of follower behaviors on process and task outcomes. We conclude with implications for the teaching of leadership and followership.

Leaders and Followers Leadership education occurs not only in the collegiate classroom. It is a booming business. Individuals studying leadership may do so in the hopes of being promoted in their careers; organizations invest in leader training as it holds the promise of helping and possibly rescuing organizations by


702


providing future leaders. At least one report indicates that 21% of U.S. corporate training dollars or about $12 billion was spent on leadership and management training in 2007 (“2008 Corporate Learning Fact Book,” 2008). Thousands of books—more than 400,000 according to Amazon.com as of July 2008—have been written on leadership from a myriad of positions. We read about learning leadership through religion (Blanchard & Hodges, 2006), motherhood (Grzelakowski, 2005), sports (Krzyzewski & Phillips, 2001), and many other ways. Scholars are starting to acknowledge an overemphasis on the leader as actor and followers as reactors (e.g., Avolio, 2007; Bennis, 2007; Grint, 2005; Lord, Brown, & Frieberg, 1999; Wofford, Whittington, & Goodwin, 2001). Unfortunately, talking about the dearth of attention given to effective followership has not yet translated into substantive treatment in texts and classes. Blank (1986), for example, addressed followership as an additional outcome rather than as the focus of the classroom activity. Likewise, Daft’s (2008) text on leadership dedicates one chapter to followership with references to the critical role played by followers sprinkled throughout the text. Still, the text’s title, The Leadership Experience, reveals its central focus: leadership. In our pursuit of the ideal leadership skill set, we may have created expectations for leaders that do not serve leaders, followers, or their organizations. For example, a significant part of a leader’s job is to create the conditions under which followers may choose to be motivated. How many followers then make the leap, however faulty, that, “As a follower, if I’m not motivated, it must be my leader’s fault!” Such a judgment may be made easier because there are no clearly defined or formally articulated roles of how followers should behave. Likewise, if our training and education point to leaders as the source of a group’s success or failure, why would we expect individuals to see followers as either contributors to success or causes of failure? Hackman and Wageman (2007, p. 43) described this tendency to put the responsibility for group performance on the leader as the leader attribution error. They suggested that the “invisibility of structural or contextual factors” leads to this type of incorrect assessment. If they are correct, then drawing attention to the factors involved in a group’s success or failure, including especially the follower role, may reduce leadership attribution error. Failure of followers to accept responsibility seems to go hand-in-hand with blaming the leader. Both authors have observed this phenomenon in class. In one case, students were asked to give feedback to a fellow student who had assumed the formal role of discussion leader. Students who did not contribute to the discussion justified their lack of contribution as appropriate



703

because the leader did not “motivate” them; the leader did not ask them the “correct” questions or talk about what the follower thought was “important.” In another case, a student acting in a leadership role was blamed when an in-class exercise did not end as some in the group had hoped. None of the students who blamed the leader for the group’s failure were willing to concede that they had failed to share ideas that might have salvaged the exercise. One lesson from both examples seems to be that students who fail to accept responsibility as followers may not understand the complementary roles of leaders and followers in the leadership process. Looking closely at how many texts approach the role of followers in various leadership models, one notices how passive followers are assumed to be. In situational theories, followers are one of many contingencies to which leaders adapt. In Hersey and Blanchard’s (1984) model, for example, prescribed leader behavior depends on followers’ maturity and willingness to act, not on leaders’ characteristics (e.g., maturity) and not on the interaction between leaders’ and followers’ characteristics. In transformational theories (e.g., Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996), followers are motivated when leaders guide, prod, and set the appropriate example. Followers are like sleeping dogs, waiting to be awakened. In goal-setting theories (e.g., House & Mitchell, 1974), the leader’s job is to clear the path to goal accomplishment, something that the followers cannot be expected to do themselves. Followers are like cats that the leader herds. The argument here is not whether these theories represent ways to improve leadership. Instead, we question the tacit message sent to followers. These and many leadership theories degrade the impact and significance of followers because the followers are seen as unable to act without the leader. The followers’ role is deflated to that of reactionary, whereas the leader’s role is inflated to that of catalyst. Such theories reduce the leader–follower interaction to one that is unidirectional, downplaying the impact of synergy on goal achievement. Followers may be acknowledged as necessary but not as necessary as the leaders are to goal accomplishment. Follower centrality is neither quantified nor made predominant to “leadership” theories. This perspective on leadership raises several questions. Does participating in leadership training that positions the followers as passive reactors promote passivity among followers? Are the benefits gained in acquired leadership skills offset by personal and group losses in efficacy and productivity, and in reduced acceptance of responsibility by the followers for their actions? Would individuals and organizations be better served by studying how followers impact goal achievement? How can classroom activities counter this trend and make students aware of their impact as


704


followers? Twenty years ago, Alderfer (1988) raised similar questions. In preparing a course to deal with followership, he asked, “Why were we (and every other management school I knew about as well) so obsessed with leadership and so apparently unconcerned about followership? Doesn’t everyone have a boss (or a board or constituents)? What were we implicitly saying about ourselves when we mainly taught about the leadership half of the leadership-followership relation?” (p. 13). In the years between his questioning and ours, few things about how to teach the importance of followership have been resolved.

Follower Responsibilities The leader and follower relationship is a complex one based on influence (Bennis, 2007). The discussion usually focuses on how the leader influences followers to achieve goals, but what about followers? If followers believe in a goal, then it seems appropriate to expect that they will share responsibility in helping achieve this goal. We argue that promoting leadership does not require ignoring the role of followers. In fact, developing “effective followers” (Kelley, 1988, 1992) may be a better way to support organizational goal achievement. After all, even formal leaders must also act as followers to fulfill their responsibilities. Some have acknowledged the increasing need to develop followers. Kelley (1992) provided a typology in which follower types are based on characteristics of engagement in critical thinking and action levels. Chaleff (2003) provided another model that categorizes follower styles based on support for the leader and willingness to challenge the leader. Both models acknowledge that followers can take backseat roles in the process but hold the promise of opportunity for followers to be more actively engaged. Kellerman (2007) proposed a typology that, in contrast to the two-variable models used by Kelley and Chaleff, focuses on engagement only. Other approaches delineate the characteristics of effective followers. For Palestini (2006), these include being “purposeful, responsible, communicative, flexible, trustworthy and respectful and sensitive” (p. 11). This approach fits with Useem’s (2001) premise that followers can lead their leaders by providing support, information, and motivation. Students will be spending much of their time as followers, and as Hackman and Wageman (2007) asserted, “One does not have to be in a leadership position to be in a position to provide leadership” (p. 46). This is an important message that needs to be communicated to students. As followers, they have an opportunity as well as a responsibility to affect goal obtainment.



705

Grint (2005) reminded us, “it only requires the good follower to do nothing for leadership to fail” (p. 133). Equally important, perhaps, is the observation that the roles assumed by followers affect their ability to lead. Leadership is a complex issue where “leaders are also followers and followers also exhibit leadership” (Hackman & Wageman, 2007, p. 46). In summary, being a good leader may first require the ability to be a good follower.

Follower Types How can we help students see the “tripod” (Bennis, 2007) where leader, follower, and goal are interdependent? Kelley’s (1988, 1992) typology of follower roles may be used to help students understand that not all followers are the same. By suggesting that followers may actively engage in the process of setting, accomplishing, and evaluating group goals, this model counters the idea that the leader is solely or even primarily responsible for the group’s outcomes. In the following section, we present Kelley’s typology in abbreviated form, relying heavily on the source works. Our goal is not to add or take away from Kelley’s (1992) typology but to present it as a useful starting point for class discussions on followership. Kelley’s (1992) typology focuses on two dimensions of follower engagement. One dimension is the follower’s critical thinking ability. Critical thinkers are able to independently assess what is needed for goal achievement. They participate in the process of developing and implementing ideas about how to obtain the goal. Uncritical thinkers are disengaged. They do not offer ideas or evaluate plans, instead choosing dependence on the leader. The other dimension is the level of activity, active or passive. Active followers work toward the goal, taking actions as necessary, whereas passive followers wait for instructions from their leaders. Five follower types emerge from these two dimensions, as listed in Table 1. Alienated followers are high on independent critical thinking skills but low on action (Kelley, 1992). These followers are able to assess information and form ideas, but they are not willing to take an active role in carrying them out. They may believe their ideas are not valued or that the atmosphere does not encourage or support their active role in the process. Hence, they spend their time decrying plans and tactics but are not willing to address problems or implement better solutions. At some point in time, whether earlier in the current group’s history or earlier in the individual’s history, the Alienated follower may have been active and therefore, Effective. Effective followers are critical thinkers who are willing to take action and initiative (Kelley, 1992). These followers take on the responsibility of


706


Table 1 Kelley’s (1992) Follower Typology Follower Type Alienated Effective Passive Conformist Pragmatic

Engagement in Critical Thinking

Engagement Level

Independent, critical thinkers Independent, critical thinkers Dependent, uncritical thinker Dependent, uncritical thinker Both

Passive Active Passive Active Both

goal achievement as their own and contribute by offering ideas and critiques combined with a willingness to step forward and act. When carrying out actions prescribed by the leader, Effective followers critically think about the consequences and confront the leader if doing so facilitates the group’s goal. These are Chaleff’s (2003) “courageous” followers. Effective followers are not always easy followers. Not all leaders welcome their suggestions, critiques, and high degree of involvement. Effective followers can seem threatening to insecure, unsure, or ineffective leaders. Other followers are neither willing nor able to engage in independent critical thinking. Conformists (Kelley, 1992), for example, are willing and able to actively participate but unable to critically assess the actions required. One example may be the stereotype of the “yes man (woman),” who willingly does whatever he or she is told to do by the leader. Conformists lack the desire or ability to assess the consequences of carrying out an order and to use their assessment to determine whether they should proceed. They do not believe they should argue with the leader’s plan. Because they do not see critical thinking as their responsibility, they opt out of the decision-making process and choose not to be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. “I did what I was told,” they’ll say. “I was following orders.” The fourth type, Passive followers, do not critically assess the group’s process or desired outcomes and are not active (Kelley, 1992). Passive followers need constant direction. Each step has to be clarified and directed by the leader. The leader must use all of the techniques in his or her “motivational toolbox” to engage Passive followers in sustained action. Finally, there are Pragmatic followers (Kelley, 1992). These followers adopt the most convenient role, concentrating on solidifying a relationship with the leader. These followers take on the behaviors that will be rewarded by the leader, critical or uncritical, passive or active. “I exist to serve you.”



707

These behaviors may not necessarily be the ones that contribute the most to goal achievement. By discussing these various role types, instructors give students something to consider as they think about oft-described leadership and the rarely described followership. Next, we describe an experiential exercise that demonstrates the Effective and Passive follower roles.

The Origami Frog Exercise The Origami Frog exercise requires students to think critically about how different follower roles influence both the process and outcomes of a group’s task. The activity at the center of the exercise is a role play in which a relatively small percentage of students play small-group leaders while the rest of the students play followers. Followers must think deliberately about and act out the behaviors associated with their assigned roles. Leaders must respond appropriately to their followers to facilitate the group’s process and desired outcomes. The exercise includes four elements. The first is a preactivity discussion of leaders and followers. The second is the activity itself. Third is the postactivity debriefing. The fourth element is an individual reflection opportunity. Whereas the first three elements occur face-to-face in the classroom setting, the fourth is completed by individual students outside of class. We have used this exercise in various upper-level management courses (e.g., Principles of Management, Organizational Behavior, Seminar in Leadership). When to use the exercise is a matter of instructor preference. We have used it both as a means of introducing leadership as a course topic and as a means of stimulating students’ critical thinking about followership after preliminary discussion of basic leadership theories (e.g., trait theory, task vs. relations orientation). We have used the exercise early in our courses and later in the semester.

Preactivity Discussion One method for presenting the material on leaders and followers is to start with a series of photographs representing leadership and nonleadership situations. We use a PowerPoint slide show that includes photos of leadership situations, such as military maneuvers, classrooms, sports teams, civil action, symphonies, and mountain climbing. Also included are photos where the leadership is debatable, such as stock car races, bicycle races,


708


groups of people at picnics or meals, and even scenes without people (e.g., schools of fish, mother duck and ducklings). The photos are most evocative if they include scenes meaningful to the students—for example, favorite sports teams in action. Students are each asked to select one photo that represents leadership to them and to explain why. We then talk about the photos that do not represent leadership and discuss why. After a brief discussion, the class typically agrees that leadership (emphasis intended) is a “tripod” (Bennis, 2007) of leader, follower, and goal. This photo-generated discussion is an especially effective way of eliciting students’ tacit understandings (Polanyi, 1967) or implicit theories of leadership. We think this step is essential to asking students to think differently about leadership and the role of followers. The discussion segues into a discussion of followers. One way to do this is to ask students a series of questions, such as the following: • Who wants to be a leader (follower)? Why or why not? • Who is a leader (follower) now? (Remind them that students in a class are followers.) • Are there more followers or leaders in an organization? • Is there anyone in an organization who is not a follower? • Why did many of you not want to be called followers? • What are some of the positive and negative things associated with being followers? • Are the negative things we associate with followers necessarily true? • What do you look for in followers (e.g., when picking colleagues for a team)? • Does the type of followers you have on your teams make a difference? Why?

Our experience with asking these and similar questions is that our students generally want to be leaders and not followers. Most of our students are business administration and accounting majors, and so it is not surprising that many expect to be leaders. That, after all, is what they have been encouraged to see as their future. Most interesting is their general disdain for being followers, and their agreement that Western culture tends to elevate the importance of leaders while minimizing the role of followers. The comment that “the University doesn’t give ‘Followership Awards’ (but does give ‘Leadership Awards’)” usually stimulates knowing smiles and laughs. Followers, it seems, are regarded as less important than leaders. After this discussion, students are presented with Kelley’s (1992) typology of followers, using the discussion presented earlier in this article or Kelley’s



709

(1988, 1992) work. Presenting all five follower types gives them a comprehensive means for understanding various follower types, all or most of which they have played themselves or directly observed. Special attention is given to ensuring that students understand the specific behaviors associated with two of the follower types, Passive and Effective, as these are the two types showcased in the origami activity. The decision to focus on only two of the five roles reflects, in part, our desire to demonstrate the importance of followers to group process and outcomes in a relatively brief role-play exercise. The two roles chosen, Passive and Effective, reflect extremes on the passive–active engagement continuum. That they also represent extremes on the dependent, uncritical thinking-independent, critical thinking continuum is noteworthy, but not essential, to why we focus on them. We focus on them because both are visible and readily demonstrable, in that they display active behavior (Effective) or the lack thereof (Passive). Neither requires a history of having once been engaged and now disenchanted, as does the Alienated role. Neither is necessarily stimulated by possibly political reasons, as is likely with the Pragmatist role, where the follower seeks to curry favor with the leader by behaving in the way desired by the leader. Finally, although the Conformist role might be a good candidate for inclusion, we believe that it could be difficult to separate it from the Effective role in the Origami Frog exercise, especially if a given follower is not especially knowledgeable about origami and simply follows the suggestions of the leader, without considering their merit. In summary, we have chosen to focus on the two roles of the five that we think can be role-played effectively and distinguished in the course of a brief exercise and that will still make the critical learning point, which is that different follower types influence group process and outcomes to varying ends. The instructor ensures that students understand how the two follower roles are played. Once this preliminary discussion is complete, the instructor conducts the Origami Frog activity.

The Origami Frog Activity Timing. The pre- and postactivity discussions and activity can fit in a 50min class period or be extended for longer classes. The preactivity discussion may be completed in as little as 15 to 20 min or extended, depending on instructor preference, student engagement, and available time. Organizing and running the activity takes no more than 20 min. Postactivity discussion can consume as little as 10 min or as much time as desired.


710


Our experience suggests that 75 min is the ideal amount of time for the full exercise. Although organizing and running the activity should never take more than 20 min, the additional 25 min associated with the 75-min approach allows for extended conversation about followership before the activity and for more involved debriefing after the activity. For example, students may have time to discuss in their small groups the process and outcomes experienced by their group before sharing with the larger class. Likewise, the instructor may use the additional time to initiate a discussion of various leadership theories that would guide how the leaders dealt with different types of followers. Participants. Each student will be asked to play one of three roles in a small group: Leader, Effective follower, or Passive follower. For the purposes of illustration, each small group consists of a leader and four followers. Class size is assumed to be 35 students, thereby yielding seven groups of 5 (1 leader, 4 followers). The number of followers per group and the number of groups will change as a function of the total class size. The number of followers should be the same for each group; “extra” students may serve as observers and be asked to watch the proceedings and share their observations in the postactivity discussion. Appendix A provides instructions for the observer role. We have used the exercise in class sizes ranging from 12 to 50. Even larger classes that have been exposed to group activities should find it manageable. In smaller classes, the instructor can reduce the number of followers in each group, though we recommend no fewer than three followers per group. Our experience suggests that having at least three small groups is ideal for promoting student learning and provocative discussion, where one group consists of all Effective followers, another group consists of all Passive followers, and the third group has a mix of Effective and Passive followers. Larger classes allow for duplicate group types, which facilitates postactivity discussion of similarities and differences. Materials. The instructor prepares a role card for each participant (excluding observers). The “role cards” may be index cards or they may be slips of paper. Each role card will indicate the role played (i.e., Leader, Effective follower, Passive follower) and the group assignment (e.g., A, B, C, D, E, F, G). Thus, on the role card for the leader of Group A, the instructor will write or type “LEADER A.” The instructor will also write any associated information from Appendix B. For example, for the leader of Group A, the instructor will write or type, “LEADER A—You are the leader for this task. You are leading



711

a group of effective followers. You have worked together previously and have successfully completed a complex task.” Likewise, the instructor will write or type, “FOLLOWER A—You are an effective follower. Your leader recognizes your value to achieving the goal. You have completed previous tasks successfully.” After preparing the role cards for each participant, the instructor separates the Leader cards from the Follower cards. The Follower cards are stacked alphabetically—A, B, C, and so on. Doing so facilitates the distribution of Follower role cards during the exercise. For each small group, the instructor prepares a manila envelope (an intercampus mail envelope works well) with the following items: • • • •

One direction sheet for each group (Appendix C) One Origami Frog instruction sheet for each group (Appendix D) One sample origami frog for each group Fifty 3 × 5 or 4 × 6 index cards or sheets of 8½ × 11 paper, cut in quarters

The envelope is marked on the outside with the appropriate letter designation (e.g., Group A, Group B). Although Loosemore’s (1994) Origami Frog instructions (Appendix D) may be clear for individuals having either origami experience or the capacity to understand diagrams without accompanying words, inexperienced students (and instructors) may be challenged to accurately follow the somewhat ambiguous visual instructions. This relative lack of clarity is intentional and helps to make the activity sufficiently complex to yield the follower-driven differences in group process and outcome. Instructors may use the additional instructions in Appendix E to make the sample frog for each group. Conducting the activity. The instructor begins by asking for leader volunteers. Having participated in the discussion where they were asked, “Who wants to be a leader?” they will not be surprised when the instructor asks for leaders. The instructor may want to explain to the students that this activity offers students a chance to show they want to be a leader, not just have the title. In our experience, students are generally willing to volunteer for the Leader roles. The leaders are asked to step forward to the front of the room. Then, the instructor holds the leader role cards (Appendix B) as one might hold a hand in playing cards, with the designations (A, B, C, etc.) facing the instructor and away from the volunteers. Each volunteer leader “draws” a role card from the hand. After assigning each of the leaders to their designation, the


712


instructor randomly assigns the rest of the class to one of the two follower roles, Passive and Effective. The most straightforward approach is to hand the role cards to each student, such that the first student is Follower A, the second student is Follower B, and so on. This process is easy if the instructor has already stacked the role cards in alphabetical order. Students are told not to share their role with either their leader or the other followers in their group. In some of the groups, the leader will not be aware of the type of followers that he or she has. An important part of the follow-up discussion will be what clued the leader as to the type of followers they had and how this discovery affected their leadership style. As the task begins, the type of follower should soon be obvious to the leader and to the other followers. Students are also reminded that they must stay in their roles. This is a good time to quickly reiterate the behaviors associated with each of the two follower roles, Passive and Effective. Once roles have been assigned, the leaders are each given their designated envelope (e.g., Group A). Followers are asked to find their leader according to their follower letter designation (e.g., A, B, C). Once groups have all their members, they are told to find a place in the classroom where their group might work separate from the other groups. Students may sit or stand. The instructor announces the beginning of the exercise, tells the class that each group has 10 min to complete the task described in the envelope, and begins tracking the time. Leaders open the envelopes and proceed to share the directions (Appendix C) and the Origami Frog instructions (Appendix D) with their followers. What happens next in terms of process and outcomes depends on the individual leaders and the behaviors of the Passive versus Effective followers. At 5 min, even the groups with all Passive followers will have probably produced one or two frogs each. If these groups have not produced any frogs at the 5-min mark, the instructor may suggest to the leader that he or she look at the sample frog for help in understanding how to make the frogs from the directions. In general, we recommend that the instructor roam the room and observe the groups, but not “sit in,” coach, or otherwise participate. At least three times during the 10 min, the instructor should remind everyone to “stay in their roles, no matter how challenging it may be to do so.” By the 10-min mark, everyone should be able to make the frogs and the groups should be functioning at optimum levels. Although 10 min may not seem like much time, our experience suggests that it “feels like forever” to some participants. Students asked to play Passive followers may be frustrated because they are more comfortable being active and may have suggestions. Leaders of Passive followers can be quickly frustrated, as



713

Passive followers carry their role to the extreme and need constant direction to keep moving. The leader may decide that the only way for the group to complete the task is for the leader to demonstrate how to make a fold and then wait while everyone completes that fold, then demonstrate the next. Or the leader may decide that the followers are hopeless and choose to make the frogs alone. Leaders with little or no origami experience tend to be extremely dissatisfied, as their Passive followers will not offer suggestions for how to proceed, and the instructions themselves (Appendix D) are not straightforward. The frustrations experienced by Passive followers and their leaders make for good discussion about the difficulties involved when leaders of Passive followers are not technically proficient. The groups of Effective followers usually grasp the needs of the task quickly. Differences in process, such as whether the group adopts an assembly line approach to producing frogs collectively or an individual approach in which each follower makes a complete frog, are generally responsible for differences in the number of total frogs produced. There may be weaker “builders” in the group. If the groups engage in collective skill assessment, they may choose to assign some of the easier tasks (e.g., test jumping the frogs) to the less adept members. The instructor stops the activity at 10 min. Groups count their finished frogs (i.e., folded, tested, and labeled). The numeric results for each group are posted for all to see. Having completed the activity, the class is ready for the postactivity discussion. Postactivity discussion. We have used two different approaches to the postactivity discussion. The discussion may involve the entire class, depending on time available and class size, or it may consist of small group discussion followed by discussion involving the entire class. The initial focus of the discussion is the number of frogs produced by each group. The number of frogs produced tends to be quite different, with groups of Effective followers generally outpacing groups of Passive followers. This result is not guaranteed, and the discussion of why this expected result may not have occurred can be enlightening. Experience with origami and gender both tend to influence the numbers produced, in addition to the follower types (Effective vs. Passive). For example, we have observed that female students tend to have more experience with origami, so female leaders often do well even when they are leading groups of Passive followers. In contrast, male leaders with no origami experience and Passive followers may become quite discouraged. Passive followers who have origami experience who find themselves in a group led


714


by an individual without origami experience will not appreciate having to sit idly while their group flounders. Members of such a group, where both the process and outcomes are likely to be severely negative (e.g., acute disappointment, few or no frogs produced), should be prompted to share their experiences with the class. Appendix F provides some possible discussion starters for the small groups. Leaders may be asked how quickly they were able to identify whether their followers were Effective or Passive (if they were not told in advance) and how they felt about the different types of followers they had. What assumptions did they make about the best way to complete the task? How did knowing (or not knowing) that they had Effective (or Passive) followers change their leadership approach? Did the followers behave as expected? If they were leading a group that had both Effective and Passive followers, did they treat them differently from each other? Similarly, followers may be asked how they felt about their leader, the task to be completed, and their fellow followers. Again, although some students will enjoy playing the role of Passive follower, others will find the experience extremely frustrating. This frustration can lead to a discussion of what type of follower they tend to be and want to be in different situations. This generates debate about the relationship between leader and follower and the consequences of working with different types of followers, for both leaders and followers. Together, both leaders and followers may be asked to describe how well their groups functioned. Did leaders and followers share the same perceptions of their groups’ process and outcomes? Were some people better at the origami task than others? How did people deal with skill differences? Which type of follower, Effective or Passive, felt more pressure to change their behavior? If they were Passive followers in a group with both Effective and Passive followers, did their leader interact differently with the Effective followers, and if yes, how did the Passive followers feel about being treated differently? Asking students about times when they have been Passive or Effective followers also brings up some interesting insights. Why would they choose to be either type of follower? Is being an Effective follower always the best choice? Students can talk about why they tend to choose their follower roles and what steps they need to take if they want to more consistently play Effective followers. Finally, any observers can be asked to share their perceptions. Especially interesting might be a comparison of what the group participants have to say versus what their observers have to say. For example, although group members may be loathe to report their feelings of frustration, observers



715

may note that people seemed irritated by their group members or by their group’s relative lack of progress or accomplishment. In lieu of student observers, the instructor can share his or her observations. The physical evidence—number of frogs produced—demonstrates that followers directly impact goal achievement and is a powerful learning opportunity for the students. It raises questions they typically have not thought of before and leaves them open to contemplating new ideas. Chaleff’s (2003) discussion of “courageous followers” is a way to provide them with ideas about how they can use their newfound “follower power” for good. In the same way, introducing Useem’s (2001) idea of “leading up” may make an important impression. At least one student in every class takes on the challenge of “leading up” by telling the instructor how compelling the Origami Frog exercise was. The instructor may also want to discuss how the students can choose to be Effective followers in situations other than a class exercise or student project group. Reflection and assessment. The final element of the exercise is a takehome reflection (Appendix G), distributed after the activity, that allows students to reflect on and work through some of their thoughts that might not get discussed in the class period. The reflection piece, adapted from Hackbert (2007), asks students to think about the activity and what they learned, to draw conclusions based on their learning, and to identify what they might do as a result of the conclusions they have drawn. Student response to the exercise tends to be positive and their reflections insightful. As one student wrote, “I want to practice being a more effective follower. Many times I don’t speak up in group settings when I don’t agree with an idea or process, and that doesn’t help the leader or the group overall.” According to another (male) student, “I learned that a leader is only as good as his followers.” The reflection piece may be graded or ungraded. Ungraded seems likely to produce candid reflections as opposed to statements possibly desired by the instructor. We generally give students 1 week to complete the reflection. In addition to asking students to complete the reflection piece in Appendix G, one of the authors surveyed students several weeks after completing the Origami Frog exercise. Asked whether they liked the exercise, the mean response was 4.54 (SD = .79, n = 148) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Asked how much the exercise had helped them to learn about followership, the mean response was 4.55 (SD = .70, n = 149), using the same 5-point scale. Students believed that the exercise had helped them learn about followership more so than the lecture (4.55 vs. 4.16; t = –5.25,


716


p < .001). In line with these statistics, one student, whose role had been to lead a group of Passive followers, wrote, “This had a huge impact on my thinking of followers/leaders. Thank you.”

Variations And Challenges Even though this exercise was designed to show how followers impact group process and goal achievement, it could be modified to demonstrate other leadership theories. For example, Fiedler’s contingency theory could be discussed (Fiedler & Chemers, 1984). A good follow-up activity could involve students applying Fiedler’s model (with its three components: leader–member relations, task structure, position power) to the Origami Frog activity. The discussion could then focus on how having Passive versus Effective followers would lead to the theory being applied differently. Likewise, the instructor could focus on Hersey and Blanchard’s (1984) theory and its consideration of followers’ willingness and ability. Group members might be asked to consider the impact of both follower attributes on the group’s process and outcomes. We have used the Origami Frog exercise in more than 20 classes. The students always respond favorably to the exercise. Of course there may be some surprises along the way for which instructors may prepare. Occasionally, perhaps one time in 20, the Passive group may outperform the Effective follower group. As described earlier, this is likely to happen if the group has a leader who knows a lot about origami and uses a directive style. In the followup discussion, students usually conclude that this worked to produce more frogs only because the leader had the necessary skills. Instructors might use this example to transition into how leaders can adapt their behaviors based on the type of followers they have. The typically negative experience of the Passive group leader requires sensitivity on the part of the instructor. These students volunteer because they believe they can lead. Imagine their cognitive dissonance when leading Passive followers who reject the leader’s attempts at motivation! We typically state our expectation that the negative outcome would have occurred no matter who was leading the Passive followers. We also suggest that leaders may doubt their leadership ability for reasons that have more to do with their followers than with the leaders themselves. We then ask them to consider a critical question, “How often do leaders congratulate themselves on their leadership ability when the followers are Effective and integral to the group’s success?” In general, after the initial shock of sometimes not being able to make a frog, students quickly accept the idea that they cannot do the job



717

alone. In part, this is why we think origami is well suited to illustrating the critical nature of followers. Students with origami skills are unlikely to brag about it, and students who might otherwise tease “incompetent” colleagues are usually no better at the activity and are likely to offer sympathy. Our students are exposed to experiential learning and may be more open to origami frogs teaching them about leadership than students without experiential learning experience. However, we believe that the activity will work even in a class that has not been exposed to that type of learning. We encourage it as a way to introduce experiential activities and the topic of followership into any course. For example, one of the authors used it as a teaching demonstration to a class on a job search. The other author used it as part of a guest lecture in a communication class. In both cases, with no previous experience with the instructors, the students responded well to the activity and talked about it with their regular instructor in subsequent classes. The last caveat deals with the instructor’s preparation. The origami instructions in Appendix D are accurate, and the sample frogs that are distributed to each group can be made using only that information. Still, we have included extra hints for the instructor’s eyes only in Appendix E, as making the sample frogs may take a fair amount of time if the instructor is unfamiliar with origami. One of the authors, whose self-described “Origami Quotient” is zero, needed the extra information when running the exercise for the first time.

Conclusion Most of our students will spend a significant amount of time as followers. How they perform that role will impact significantly the goals that their work groups and organizations will be able to achieve. We are obliged to offer our students a realistic preview of what their work lives will entail while also helping them to overcome unstated yet pervasive biases in favor of leadership and against followership. Organizations need to recognize the essential contributions of followers. Students need to realize that there are many ways besides being the leader that they influence goal achievement. This exercise provides the opportunity to see why the nature of followership matters. It also provides a way for them to think about what type of followers they want to be and when they are leaders, the type of followers they will want. Although the Origami Frog exercise simplifies the idea of followership, the class discussion could stretch over several days. In a higher level


718


leadership class, the questions that might be considered are many. For example, students might be asked to ponder the interdependent relationship between leaders and followers. Do individuals change their followership style in reaction to their leader’s style, other situational characteristics, or the styles exhibited by their fellow followers? Why might leaders be wary of Effective followers? Under what conditions do Effective and other types of followers become Alienated? How do the skills of an Effective follower prepare one for being an effective leader and vice versa? What would it take for society to “fall in love” with followers, as it historically has done with leaders? Our students will spend a large portion of their careers as followers. Pointing out that they have some choice in how they carry out this role could make a difference in their personal satisfaction and contribution to organizational outcomes.

Appendix A Activity Instructions for Observers Observer Instructions. Each team is supposed to produce as many high-quality origami jumping frogs as possible in 10 minutes. Your role is to observe each of the group’s members, and by role (leader vs. follower), make note of their behaviors, statements, and the reactions of others to their behaviors and statements. When the exercise is finished, you will be asked to share your observations with the class. 1. Does the leader seem to know what kind of followers are in his or her group? 2. How does the leader react to each follower? How does each follower react to the leader? 3. How important is the leader to task accomplishment? How important are the followers? Who contributes more: leader or followers? 4. How did the group members seem to feel about one another? About the task? 5. Would you expect the leader and followers to want to work together in the future?


719


Follower E—You are a passive follower.

Leader D—You are the leader for this task. Leader E—You are the leader for this task.

Follower G—You are a passive follower.

Note: Make one leader card for each of the following groups (A–G), assuming a class size of 35. The number of follower cards per group is listed in the first column.

Leader F—You are the leader for this task, assume you are leading a group of passive followers. Group G—Leader told followers are effective. Leader G—You are the leader for this task, Make 4 Passive follower cards. assume you are leading a group of effective followers.

Follower F—You are an effective follower.

Follower D—You are an effective follower.

Leader C—You are the leader for this task.

Group C—Leader unaware of follower type. Make 2 Effective follower cards and 2 Passive follower cards. Group D—Leader unaware of follower type. Make 4 Effective follower cards. Group E—Leader unaware of follower type. Make 4 Passive follower cards. Group F—Leader told followers are passive. Make 4 Effective follower cards.

Group B—Leader aware of follower type. Make 4 Passive follower cards.

Follower A—You are an effective follower. Your leader recognizes your value to achieving the goal. You have completed previous tasks successfully. Follower B—You are a passive follower. You have worked with this leader on previous tasks. The leader does not welcome suggestions and is ready to blame followers if the task fails. Follower C—You are a passive follower. Follower C—You are an effective follower.

Follower Role: Print the Text Below on the Follower Cards

Leader A—You are leading a group of effective followers. You have worked together previously and have successfully completed a complex task. Leader B—You are leading a group of passive followers. You have worked together previously. Your followers need constant supervision and direction and do not take initiative.

Leader Role: Print the Text Below on the Leader Card

Group A—Leader aware of follower type. Make 4 Effective follower cards.

Group Description

Table B1 Leader and Follower Roles

Appendix B

720


Appendix C Activity Instructions for Participants Team Instructions. Your team needs to complete the following task. Task: Produce as many high-quality Origami Frogs as possible in 10 minutes. Instructions: 1. Make the origami frogs using only the enclosed index cards. Use the “Origami Frog” instruction sheet to guide you. 2. Product test each frog’s quality by verifying that it can complete 2 jumps. 3. Label each acceptable frog with your team logo.

Appendix D Origami Frog Instructions

Source: Loosemore, S. (1994). Make an origami frog. The Froggy Page. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/origami/index.shtml. Reprinted with permission.



721

Appendix E Origami Hints for the Instructor These hints are intended to help the instructor make the sample frogs for each group. The point of the exercise is to have a complex task that is best handled by using the collective expertise of the followers. The instructions distributed to the students need to be difficult in order to motivate the group to work together and frustrate those who are working alone. This frustration may be felt by the instructor who is attempting origami for the first time. These hints are intended to help overcome that frustration, so that instructors can supply sample frogs to each group for the exercise. Instructors who have little or no origami experience will want to make the sample frogs well before class time. Once the instructor has worked through the first set of folds, the remaining folds are relatively easy to complete. • After making the first diagonal fold in Step 2, open the card and lay it flat. Then, make another diagonal fold starting from the opposite corner for Step 3. • After Step 3, open the card and lay it flat. Then, fold using the point where the lines intersect as a guide for the horizontal fold in Step 4. • After Step 4, open the card and lay it flat. Step 5 shows the creases made by Steps 2 to 4. • For Step 6, push the horizontal line in from the sides to meet in the middle. You have a smooth triangle on top and one on bottom. • For Step 7, take the outside point of the large triangle and fold up to the point of the large triangle, forming a line in the center of the starting triangle. Fold in the side section below the triangle to the middle. See the picture in Step 8. Step 8 repeats with the other side. • For Step 10, fold the frog in half. • For Step 11, fold the bottom square in half in the opposite direction.

Appendix F Discussion Topics for Activity Debrief Group A. What assumptions did the leader make about the best way to complete the task? How did knowing that the leader had effective followers change the leader’s approach? How did the group function? Did the followers actively contribute? Were some people better at the task than others? How were skill differences addressed? Group B. What assumptions did the leader make about the best way to complete the task? How did the followers feel about being passive? Was it difficult for them to be passive? Did the leader have experience with origami? How did this impact


722


making the frogs? Was the leader’s experience more important in this group than the leader’s experience in Group A? Group C. How quickly did the leader identify the followers’ styles? Who had the biggest influence, the passive or effective followers? Which type of follower felt more pressure to change their style? Did a relationship develop between the leader and effective followers that excluded the passive followers, possibly alienating them? Groups D and E. How quickly did the leader identify the followers’ styles? Is it usually easy to identify follower styles in a more complex project? How did the leader feel when he or she realized what the followers’ styles were? What happens when a leader doesn’t know the style of his or her followers? Groups F and G. How did the leader’s assumptions impact the way he or she led? Did the followers behave as expected? How long did it take the leader to realize the followers’ styles were not what the leader expected? Was it difficult for the followers to stay in character when the leader had different expectations?

Appendix G Reflection Sheet Your name: _______________________________________________ Thinking about the Origami Frog Exercise: Respond to 1 question or statement under each of the following sections—A, B, and C. Reflect—your discernment of the learning outcome. • The most successful part of this activity/discussion for me was? Why? • The new skill or “piece” of knowledge I came to see in this situation was? • I liked/disliked … about this experience … I contributed … Abstract—your conclusions and insightful generalizations. • From this experience I can see the value of the following guidelines: • From this experience I developed the following hunches: • From this experience I learned the following principle(s): Active Experimentation—your decision of what to do next as a result of the conclusions. • Of the items I noticed in the reflective process of the activity, I want to practice: • One or two new “pieces” of new knowledge that I experienced and I want to try out is:



723

References Alderfer, C. (1988). Teaching personality and leadership: A course on followership. Journal of Management Education, 12, 12-33. Avolio, B. (2007). Promoting more integrative strategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1), 25-33. Bennis, W. (2007). The challenges of leadership in the modern world. American Psychologist, 62(1), 2-5. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: Key orientations for achieving production through people. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing. Blanchard, K., & Hodges, P. (2006). Lead like Jesus: Lessons from the greatest leadership model of all time. Nashville, TN: W Publishing Group. Blank, W. (1986). A simple ongoing group exercise for large introductory classes. Journal of Management Education, 10, 85-87. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Daft, R. (2008). The leadership experience (4th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77-80. Retrieved July 29, 2008, from http://dewey.pragmatism.org/creed.htm Fiedler, F. E., & Chemers, M. M. (1984). Improving leadership effectiveness: The leader match concepts (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley & Sons. Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory in the classroom. New York: Harper Perennial. Griffin, B. (1997). Using origami to teach production management. Production and Inventory Management Journal, 36(2), 1-5. Grint, K. (2005). Leadership: Limits and possibilities. Hong Kong, China: Palgrave Macmillan. Grzelakowski, M. (2005). Mother leads best. Chicago: Dearborn Trade. Hackbert, P. (2007, August). Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Center for Teaching Excellence: The Reflection Worksheet. Paper presented at EJC Faculty Development Conference at Drury University. Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2007). Asking the right questions about leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 43-47. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1984). The management of organizational behavior (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. House, R., & Mitchell, T. (1974). Path-Goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81-97. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (1982). Joining together (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kellerman, B. (2007, December). What every leader needs to know about followers. Harvard Business Review, pp. 84-91. Kelley, R. (1988, November–December). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, pp. 142-148. Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday. Kolb, A., & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212. Krzyzewski, M., & Phillips, D. (2001). Leading with the heart: Coach K’s successful strategies for basketball, business, and life. New York: Warner. Lang, R. J. (2008). Robert J. Lang origami. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www .langorigami.com/science/4osme/4osme.php4


724


Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Brothers. Loosemore, S. (1994). Make an origami frog. The Froggy Page. Retrieved April 15, 2007, from http://www.frogsonice.com/froggy/origami/index.shtml Lord, R., Brown, D., & Frieberg, S. (1999). Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 167-203. Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 385-425. Meindl, J. R. (1990). On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. In B. M. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 159-203). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78-102. Palestini, R. (2006). Path to leadership: The heroic follower. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 2008 Corporate Learning Factbook values U.S. training market at $58.5B. (2008). Business Wire. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/ is_2008_Jan_29/ai_n24237908/ Useem, M. (2001). Leading up: How to lead your boss so you both win. New York: Crown. Wofford, J., Whittington, J. & Goodwin, V. (2001). Follower motive patterns as situational moderators for transformational leadership effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 196-211.

For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www .sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.


Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers

Demonstrating the Interplay of Leaders and Followers

Suggest Documents

not leaders not followers - CiteSeerX

Coaching leadership: leaders' and followers ... - Semantic Scholar

Leaders' Emotions and Followers' Behaviors: A New

Leaders, followers, and group decision-making

Leaders, Followers, and the Institutional Problem of Trust - ruf.rice.edu

[PDF] Leadership: Leaders, Followers, Environments Best Seller

Multi-Firm Mergers with Leaders and Followers - Faculty of Social ...

Leaders and Followers: E-government, Policy Innovation and Policy ...

Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes ...

Leaders and Followers in a Hot IPO Market

relationship between leaders and followers as a ...

Leadership without Leaders? Starters and Followers in Online ... - arXiv

Influence of Leaders' Psychological Capital on Their Followers

How Leaders Affect Followers’ Work ... - SSRN papers

PDF Download From Followers to Leaders: Managing ... - Google Sites

Leaders and Followers: An Exploration of the Notion of Scale-Free ...

Followers - The Hillside Group

Leaders and followers in katydid choruses in the field: call intensity ...

Serving the Leaders of Today and Developing the Leaders of ...

Serving the Leaders of Today and Developing the Leaders of ...

The importance of followers' emotions in effective

091615_I Have the Best Followers

Instagram Followers Hack How Get Unlimited Followers ... - Curlstone

a true story of turning followers into leaders by l. david marquet pdf full ...