Do organizations get the followers they deserve?

Do organizations get the followers they deserve?

Andrew D. Brown The Judge Institute of Management Studies, University of Cambridge, UK, and W.T. Thornborrow Consultant with International Management Solutions, Nottingham, UK While organizations are composed largely of people who follow orders, followers and followership skills are a neglected area of research. Presents the results of a survey of followership types at three UK companies: the Halifax, a regional electricity company and Thorntons. Suggests that an organization’s culture determines the dominant leadership style, and that this in turn has an influence over what types of followers tend to predominate. Recommends that organizations should not only pay due regard to training their followers, but that further action to amend an unhelpful culture and dysfunctional patterns of leadership should also be considered.

Introduction In most organizations most people spend most of their time following orders rather than giving them. This is not only true for line workers and junior managers, but for many relatively senior individuals, all of whom implement policies decided by others. It is, therefore, surprising to discover that while theories of leadership abound, comparatively little research has been conducted into followership (Thornborrow, 1994). The principal reason for this seems to be that the very word follower conjures up unfavourable images of passive, low status underlings, unable or unwilling to assume responsibility and unlikely to achieve anything significant (Alcorn, 1992). This characterization of followers is, in our view, dangerously misleading. Followership is the natural complement of leadership, and if an organization is to be successful then it must pay attention to the nature and quality of its followers as well as its leaders. As long-ago as 1978 Burns suggested that: Leaders induce followers to act for certain goals that represent the values and the motivations – the wants and needs, the aspirations and expectations – of both leaders and followers [emphasized in the original text], and the genius of leadership lies in the manner in which leaders see and act on their own and followers’ values and motivations (quoted in Bargal and Schmid, 1989).

Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17/1 [1996] 5–11 © MCB University Press [ISSN 0143-7739]

However, Burns’ perception that followers merit attention in order to gain further insights into the phenomenon of leadership has largely been ignored. The argument forwarded here is that we should focus on followership for two main reasons: first, in order that we may come to a more comprehensive understanding of leadership: and second, so that we can begin an exploration of ways in which followers can be trained to promote organization success (Buhler, 1993). In this article it is suggested that organizations which do not value followers or followership skills are doing themselves a disservice. The argument put forward here is that unless special measures are taken to train followers to be more effective, then the type of followers that predominates, will depend on the

dominant leadership style pervading an organization. Looking at leader-follower dynamics in a broader context it is clear that the leadership style which dominates an organization will depend largely on that organization’s culture. Focusing on three UK companies, this article illustrates how an organization’s culture tends to determine its dominant leadership style, and how this style of leadership is then likely to produce particular types of followers.

Understanding followers The available literature on followers and followership is not extensive, and mostly American in origin and focus. Most researchers interested in followership have concentrated on generating lists of characteristics that followers either do actually or should ideally possess. For example, Wade and Ragan (1992) have identified 87 attributes associated with followers, the most commonly cited of which include “obedient”, “needs to belong”, “conforming” and “respectful”. Attempting to delineate the characteristics associated with ideal followers Alcorn (1992) has suggested that critical follower skills include: co-operation, flexibility, integrity, initiative and problem solving. In a similar vein Murphy (1990) has argued that effective followers are able to “think for themselves and have initiative, are well balanced and responsible, manage themselves well and can succeed without a strong leader”. A bewildering variety of character traits are, thus, apparently associated with followers. In order to make sense of these studies some form of typology of different follower types is required. Perhaps the most interesting and plausible typology available to us has been developed by Kelly (1988). According to Kelly there are five main types of follower that may be found in organizations: 1 Sheep are passive, uncritical, lack initiative and a sense of responsibility. At their best they are able to perform the tasks assigned to them, but then come to a stop. 2 Yes people are livelier than sheep but equally unenterprising, being completely

[5]

Andrew D. Brown and W.T. Thornborrow Do organizations get the followers they deserve? Leadership & Organization Development Journal 17/1 [1996] 5–11

dependent on a leader for inspiration. Such people can be aggressively deferential, and possibly servile. 3 Alienated individuals are critical and independent in their thinking, but passive in the conduct of their role. These “switched off ” followers are often cynical, and tend to sink into disgruntled acquiesence, seldom openly opposing a leader’s efforts. 4 Survivors live by the slogan “better safe than sorry”, and are adept at surviving change. These are the organizational “fence-sitters”, who adapt chameleon-like to new conditions. 5 Effective/exemplary followers are able to think for themselves and conduct their duties with energy and assertiveness. Such people are often risk takers and selfstarters who can independently solve problems, and who are awarded consistently high ratings by their superiors. This typology has considerable face validity and intuitive plausibility. It does, however, present us with a paradox: the effective follower shares many of the characteristics associated with exemplary leaders. Both effective leaders and followers are, it seems, independent thinkers, who are able to exercise control over work tasks, and who do not require supervision. According to Kelly (1988) effective followers not only perceive themselves to be the equals of the leaders they follow, but are courageous, honest, credible, and committed to the organization in which they work. Perhaps this should not unduly surprise us, as it is among this cadre of followers that an organization’s future leaders are likely to be drawn. While Kelly’s work informs us about followership in general, it tells us little about any specific organization. We suggest that the dominant follower type (or types) in any given organization will be related closely to that organization’s culture, through the influence of leadership style. Organizational culture refers to the pattern of beliefs, values and learned ways of coping with experience that have developed during the course of an organization’s history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and in the behaviours of its members (Brown, 1995). The idea that different follower types will be associated with different cultural types is in line with other suggestions that different cultures will be associated with different strategies, structures, performances and policies (Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985). In order to test our hypothesis we examined our case study organizations

[6]

in terms of what leadership style was both preferred by followers and in fact dominant. The four descriptions of leadership behaviour employed were: 1 Directive. This involves letting subordinates know exactly what is expected of them and giving specific instructions. 2 Supportive. This involves a friendly and approachable manner and displaying concern for the needs and welfare of subordinates. 3 Participative. This involves consulting with subordinates and the evaluation of their options and suggestions before making a decision. 4 Achievement-oriented. This involves setting challenging goals for subordinates, seeking improvement in their performance, and showing confidence in their ability to perform well.

Research design Based on an in-depth review of the relevant literature a questionnaire was devised, piloted and refined. This was an important process because the original questionnaire we created was based largely on American findings, and needed to be tailored to a UK cultural context. A large number of organizations were initially identified as ideal hosts for this research, and after prolonged discussions three of these eventually agreed to take part. This was a pleasing result that allowed us to compare findings between a manufacturer (Thorntons plc), a recently privatized service company (a regional electricity company, henceforward referred to as REC) and a large financial services organization (Halifax Building Society). A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed to these organizations in August 1994. Of these, 100 were distributed to staff at Halifax Building Society’s headquarters, 75 questionnaires were distributed in Thornton’s principal manufacturing unit in Derbyshire, and a further 75 questionnaires were provided to REC. Extremely high response rates were achieved from all these organizations: 83 per cent from the Halifax, 57.5 per cent from REC, and 45.3 per cent from Thorntons. The overall response rate for this research was thus 64 per cent. This questionnaire data was supplemented by a range of semi-structured interviews and the collection of all relevant documentary materials, which were used to gain information on the history, structure, culture and recent performance of the organizations.


The case study organizations Halifax Building Society The Halifax Building Society is the largest building society in the world, employing a total of 25,000 people. It boasts 12 million savings accounts, 1.8 million borrowers, nearly 700 branches, and approximately 1,300 agencies. In 1986 government legislation allowed the society to expand its services from its two traditional areas – savings schemes and mortgages – to include the provision of a wider range of services and related products for the benefit of its customers, such as life assurance, pensions and unit trust investments. The Halifax has no equity shareholders and pays no dividends. Instead, profits are retained for the benefits of its members, as has been the tradition since 1853. The Halifax has performed well in recent years, and for the financial year 1993/94 reported a profit before tax of £866 million and total assets of £67,157 million. The organization’s head office in Halifax employees 3,900 staff. This part of the organization is a multi-layered hierarchy with 16 discrete levels. Employees are able to progress through the first 12 of these grades by undertaking various training courses until they reach a specified level of competence. Some of the core competences include: communication, team orientation, use of information, planning, accuracy, analysis, initiative and willingness to learn. Most employees recognized that they worked for a bureaucratic organization, steeped in tradition, and profoundly influenced by an authoritarian cultural heritage. This said, the appointment of a new CEO in late 1993 who is apparently committed to inculcating a more liberated management style does seem to have had an impact. We restricted our investigation to one specific department at the head office which was noted for its entrepreneurial outlook and attempts to empower its employees.

REC Privatized in 1990, REC is a public limited power supply company with approximately 8,000 employees. Its electricity generating operations are spread across seven local business units in its geographical area, which are co-ordinated by a 1,200 strong head office. The organization does not, however, confine itself to electricity generation, and has major interests in retail outlets, security systems, insurance, investments, electrical contracting and information technology services. It is interesting to note that in 1994 83.9 per cent of the organization’s issued share capital was held

by nominee companies and other investment institutions. While the company is essentially a healthy one some poor investment decisions saw its pre-tax profits slip from £155.1 million in 1992/3 to £51.2 million in 1993/94. This research focused on the organization’s head office, which (in contrast to the Halifax), was a mere seven level hierarchy. The organization was described as being highly bureaucratic, and still heavily influenced by its experience in the public sector. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of its public sector inheritance was thought to be a large cadre of older middle managers unable to deal with the new demands that being a private commercial organization was making on them to be imaginative and flexible team players. There was, nevertheless, evidence that progress was being made: a major programme of business process re-engineering had been implemented, customer-focused attitudes were being fostered at all levels, and improvements to the organization’s business systems were recognized to be necessary. Moreover, the staff themselves realized that there was a necessity for change, and their was talk of “progress” having been made.

Thorntons plc Thorntons is a manufacturer, distributor and retailer of confectionery worldwide. Founded in 1911 by Joseph Thornton, the Thornton family still dominate the company, and despite several flotations retain 47 per cent of the stock. The organization has several manufacturing sites, 245 retail outlets and 230 franchise operations. Recent changes have seen the company attempt to establish a presence in both America and France. Neither investment has been particularly successful so far, and this is reflected in the pre-tax profits, which have declined from £10.03 million in 1992/93 to £8.38 million in 1993/94. The organization employs approximately 2,000 people, of whom 220 staff the headquarters in Derbyshire where this research was conducted. Despite moves to make the company more professional in its operations and outlook Thorntons still has the “feel” of an old family business. The company has always recruited its workforce locally, and there are many long-serving employees who fondly reminisce about the “old days”. The extent to which individuals of different status are on first name terms is remarkable, as is the pervasive nature of the paternalism that informs work relations. Thorntons is, however, changing fast. Major strides have been taken towards ending the “fire fighting” methods of production whereby managers responded to problems on an ad hoc basis. The company is

[7]


about to be accredited to BS 5750 (ISO 9000), and the feasibility of introducing just-in-time short cycle manufacturing is being investigated. Whether these changes will fundamentally alter Thorntons commitment to its staff or its staff ’s loyalty to the company (arguably a fundamental cultural dynamic), is yet to become apparent.

Figure 2 The three most negative characteristics that a boss could find in a subordinate

Irresponsible (14.0 per cent)

Unreliable (20.8 per cent)

Lazy (13.0 per cent) Inefficient (10.6 per cent)

Investigating followership Our questionnaire was designed to generate three main findings. First, we wanted to discover what characteristics were most sought after in followers by leaders, and what characteristics were considered least desirable in followers. Second, the questionnaire attempted to find out whether it was generally thought that followers were born or made, and whether people should be trained to be effective followers. Third, we used Kelly’s typology of followers to ascertain what sort of followers were predominant in the three organizations studied.

The characteristics of followers Using previous research we identified the eight most important positive characteristics possessed by followers, and asked respondents to indicate which three they considered bosses tended to look for in their subordinates. In order to check the reliability of our findings we also asked (though later on in the questionnaire) that respondents identify the three most negative characteristics that a boss could find in a subordinate. The results are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. The results shown in Figure 1 clearly illustrate that reliability is generally thought to be the most desirable characteristic in a subordinate, with 23.1 per cent of the total

Figure 1 The three most important characteristics that you think a boss looks for in his/her subordinates

Potential (5.8 per cent)

Initiative (17.0 per cent)

Responsible (13.3 per cent) Trustworthy (15.0 per cent)

[8]

Loyalty (8.3 per cent)

Organized (9. 1 per cent)

No potential (3.0 per cent) Unco-operative (15.3 per cent) Untrustworthy (17.0 per cent)

response allocated to it. This is well ahead of initiative with 17 per cent, trustworthy with 15 per cent and responsible with 13.3 per cent of the total response. No other characteristic scored more than 10 per cent. Looking now to Figure 2 it is apparent that the order of least desirable subordinate characteristics matches the first result fairly closely. The most negative characteristic is unreliable with 20.8 per cent, followed by untrustworthy with 17 per cent, uncooperative 15.3 per cent, irresponsible 14 per cent, lazy 13 per cent, and inefficient 10.3 per cent. These results are interesting and useful as they help us to understand what is generally meant by good and poor subordinates, and to define more precisely which followership skills it may be useful to teach on training programmes for junior staff.

Followers: born or made? There was overwhelming agreement among respondents (73.2 per cent of the sample) that people are not born to be followers, but become followers as a result of other factors (see Figure 3). There was also considerable support for the idea that followers can be taught how to be more effective followers (74.3 per cent of the sample, as shown in Figure 4).

Figure 3 Do you agree that followers are born not made?

Don’t know (11.5 per cent)

Reliable (23.1 per cent)

Co-operative (8.3 per cent)

Disloyal (6.4 per cent)

No (73.2 per cent)

Yes (15.3 per cent)


Figure 4 Do you agree that followers can be taught how to follow?

Alienated (13.5 per cent)

Don’t know ( 9.6 per cent)

No (16.2 per cent)

Figure 6 The most common follower types in the Halifax

Yes (74.3 per cent)

Survivors (22.1 per cent)

Exemplary (17.3 per cent)

Sheep (19.1 per cent)

Yes people (28.0 per cent)

Figure 5 Should organizations start training people to be effective followers?

Don’t know (13.9 per cent)

No (22.8 per cent)

Yes (63.3 per cent)

These results were complemented by the finding that 63.3 per cent of our sample thought that training should in fact be provided to subordinates in order to make them better followers (see Figure 5). Such findings indicate that there is an extraordinarily high level of consensus on these issues, and constitute a prima facia case for organizations to consider scheduling training programmes to improve the followership skills of their employees. Courses designed explicitly to make people better followers may be useful not just for the skills they teach, but also to help reduce the stigma attached to being a follower.

Follower types at the Halifax, REC and Thorntons Figures 6, 7, and 8 illustrate the follower types which predominate in our three case study organizations. The Halifax is dominated by yes people, with survivors being the second most common type of follower. In addition, there are marginally more sheep than exemplary followers, and very few alienated individuals. A rather different situation prevails at REC, where yes people, sheep and survivors are all almost equally common. Interestingly, while there are relatively few alienated individuals at REC, there are also

extremely few exemplary followers. The picture of followership gained at Thorntons is similar to that prevailing at REC. Here yes people marginally out-number sheep and survivors, and there are evidently more exemplary than alienated workers. Aggregating these results (see Figure 9) shows that across all three organizations surveyed yes people are the most commonly found, followed by survivors, and then sheep. Disappointingly, for the organizations concerned, exemplary followers were only the fourth most common type of follower, a finding partially compensated for by the fact that alienated individuals are an even rarer occurrence.

Figure 7 The most common follower types in the REC






Figure 8 The most common follower types in Thorntons






[9]


Figure 9 The most common types as an aggregate for all three organizations



with has bred somewhat fewer exemplary followers. That relatively few alienated individuals exist at the Halifax is probably due to factors such as individuals lack of role ambiguity, their relative security of employment, and the generally pleasant working conditions which prevail.

REC Survivors (22.7 per cent)



Discussion: do organizations get the followers they deserve? We believe that, by and large, organizations do get the followers they deserve. What we mean by this is that organizations tend to promote a particular culture, or way of doing things, which naturally rewards certain sorts of behaviours and discourages others. In practice, this means that not only is a particular leadership style favoured by an organization’s culture, but so is a specific type of followership. As a matter of fact it is almost certainly the case that the leadership and followership styles that dominate in a given company will be strongly related. Our proposition is, thus, that an organization’s culture influences the dominant leadership style which in turn shapes the dominant followership style. This was arguably the case in the Halifax, REC and Thorntons.

Halifax Building Society At the Halifax subordinates expressed a strong preference for an achievementoriented leadership style, with a supportive leadership style being the second most preferred. There was a clear lack of support for a directive leadership style. As a matter of fact, however, no clear consensus emerged regarding what leadership style was dominant at the Halifax, with almost as many employees claiming that the dominant style was directive as achievement-oriented and supportive. This confusion probably reflects a situation in which a rigid bureaucracy previously run along authoritarian lines is attempting to adopt more open and flexible working practices. In terms of our argument, the result is that yes people have been able to survive and thrive, with survivors and sheep also being encouraged. The obvious lack of correspondence between the leadership style that subordinates want and what they have to deal

[ 10 ]

At REC subordinates expressed a preference for a participative style of leadership, with an achievement-oriented style being the second most preferred. There was almost no support for either a supportive or a directive leadership style. Most subordinates, however, felt that the dominant leadership style was in fact directive. The participative and achievementoriented leadership styles were ranked second and fourth most in evidence respectively. The dominance of the directive style of leadership may account for the large number of yes people, sheep and survivors in REC. The argument here is that a directive leadership style actively discourages exemplary subordinate behaviours such as thinking for oneself and showing initiative, and encourages the less creditable behaviours associated with sheep, yes people and survivors, like being unadventurous and opportunist. This is because a directive style of leadership allows little scope for subordinate participation, creativity and personal growth. The extent to which the directive leadership style dominates at REC might also be thought likely to foster alienation, and Figure 7 illustrates that there are similar numbers of alienated subordinates and exemplary workers. The cultural legacy associated with having been a public utility, and especially an older cadre of middle managers unable to cope with the changed role and status of the organization, may well be a significant determining factor here.

Thorntons plc At Thorntons there was a strong preference for a combination of both participative and achievement leadership styles. As at REC there were relatively few individuals who favoured either a supportive or a directive style of leadership. However, like REC, there was, in practice, perceived to be a dominance of the directive style. This again was reflected in a preponderance of yes people, survivors and sheep, and extraordinarily low numbers of exemplary workers – far less than the number of alienated subordinates. The fact that this is an old established company that had been (and indeed still is) controlled by a benevolent but directive family is important in explaining this result. The lack of planning and control mechanisms which until recently


meant that managers spent their time “firefighting” is also significant, as it may have resulted in work patterns which naturally encouraged a directive leadership style at all levels of management, and allowed few opportunities for subordinates to demonstrate and refine their exemplary capabilities.

Conclusions This article has argued that there is a correspondence between an organization’s prevailing culture, dominant leadership style, and the types of follower that are encouraged to develop. The case studies of the Halifax, REC and Thorntons presented here provided suggestive evidence that this pattern of reasoning may indeed be valid. While our data are not sufficiently exhaustive to prove the argument, the evidence is interesting enough to make this a topic worthy of further research by academics and careful reflection by practising managers. Finally, it is worth restating that organizations are staffed by people, many of whom have dual sets of duties and responsibilities – as superior to some and as subordinate to others. This important role dichotomy has largely been ignored by academics and managers keen to focus on issues of leadership. Our research represents a “first step” towards redressing the balance of scholarship, identifying an “ideal typical” UK follower profile, and refocusing attention on the importance of followers to the success of organizations. Most people think that followers can and should be trained if they are to be optimally effective, yet few organizations seem to have acted on these perceptions. If there is a lesson here for the general manager it is that the chances are that he/she follows as well as leads, and that

in both capacities sensitivity to the importance of followers and followership skills may lead to a healthier organization.

References Alcorn, D.S. (1992), “Dynamic followership: empowerment at work”, Management Quarterly, Spring, pp. 9-13. Bargal, D. and Schmid, H. (1989), “Recent themes in theory and research on leadership and their implications for management of the human services”, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 37-54. Brown, A.D. (1995), Organisational Culture, Pitman, London. Buhler, P. (1993), “The flipside of leadership – cultivating followers”, Supervision, Vol. 54, pp. 17-19. Kelly, R.E. (1988), “In praise of followers”, Harvard Business Review, November-December, pp. 142-8. Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New York, NY. Murphy, D. (1990), “Followers for a new era”, Nursing Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 68-9. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence, Lessons from America’s Best-run Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY. Schein, E.H. (1985), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey Bass, San Fransisco, CA. Thornborrow, W.T. (1994), “Follow my leader: an investigation into the perceptions of follower types in the Halifax Building Society, E.M.E. plc & Thorntons plc”, MBA dissertation, School of Management and Finance, University of Nottingham. Wade, R.G. and Ragan, J.W. (1992), “Thinking about followers: investigating a neglected area of leadership research”, paper presented at the 52nd Annual Conference of the American Academy of Management Las Vegas, NV.

[ 11 ]