Followership and Leadership

8/9/2019 Followership and Leadership

1/30

Sri Sharada Institute Of Indian Management -Research

Approved by AICTE

Plot No. 7, Phase-II, Institutional Area, Behind the Grand Hotel, asant !un" ,

Ne# $elhi % &&''7' (ebsite) ###.srisii*.or+

ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP DM!"#$

PRO%E&T REPORT

ON

LEADERSHIP AND 'OLLO(ERSHIP

IN THE PARTIAL ')L'ILLMENT O' THE RE*)IREMENT O' !th TRIMESTER

Su+mitted T, - Su+mitted ./ -

Pr,f0 Shraddha .hadauria Anurag &h,udhar/ 1"23"2"4$'acu5t/ ,f SRISIIM Anm,5 Raina 1"23"2"6$

Amit Singh 1"23"2"!$ Nitesh 7erma 1"23"23"$
http://www.srisiim.org/http://www.srisiim.org/


2/30

DE&LARATION

(e hereby de lare that the ollo#in+ pro"e t report o LEADERSHIP AND

'OLLO(ERSHIP is an authenti #or done by us.

This is to de lare that all #or indul+ed in the o*pletion o this #or su h as

resear h, analysis o a tivities o *a ro is a pro ound and honest #or o ours.

Sri SIIMPla e) Ne# $elhi

Anura+ Choudhary/0'&1'&'23A*it 4in+h/0'&1'&'53An*ol 6aina/0'&1'&' 3Nitesh er*a/0'&1'&1'3


3/30

A&8NO(LEDGEMENT

(e #ould li e to e8press our hearty +ratitude to our a ulty +uide, Pr,f0

SHRADDHA .HADA)RIA or +ivin+ us the opportunity to prepare

a pro"e t report on 9LEADERSHIP AND 'OLLO(ERSHIP : and or her

valuable +uidan e and sin ere ooperation, #hi h helped us in o*pletin+ this pro"e t.

Amit Singh 1"23"2"!$Anm,5 Raina 1"23"2"6$Anurag &h,udhar/ 1"23"2"4$Nitesh 7erma 1"23"23"$

PGDM 1"23 ; 2


4/30

TA.LE O' &ONTENTS

9:;;:(E64HIP.................................................................................................&

6E IE( :9 9:;;:(E64HIP ;ITE6AT


5/30


6/30

!Always be a leader, ne er a follower $ has gone a long way toward adding to thestigma of being a follower.

Another reason there is so little research on followership arises from amisconception that leadership is more important than followership. %heassumption that good followership is simply doing what one is told, and thateffecti e task accomplishment is the result of good leadership, doesn"t amplify

the merits of the follower role. According to Meindl 19:&0, management andorgani)ational beha ior ha e been dominated by the concept of leadership,which has assumed a romantici)ed, larger than life role as a result.

rgani)ational literature is full of studies of leadership characteristics, reflectingthe belief that good or bad leadership largely e plains organi)ational outcomes.;n spite of its ob ious rele ance to leadership, followership is rarely discussedwhen corporations seek to better themsel es. ;nstead, the focus turns tode eloping leadership skills. Much attention is paid to what makes a leadersuccessful because the thinking is that as the leader succeeds, so does theorgani)ation. 4owe er, this iew ignores the fact that leaders need followers toaccomplish their goals.

;t does seem ironic that the effecti eness of a leader is to a great e tentdependent on the willingness and consent of the followers. (ithout followers,there can be no leaders. ;ndeed, 4ansen 19:&0 ad anced that acti efollowership means the leader"s authority has been accepted which gi eslegitimacy to the direction and ision of the leader. (ithout the eyes, ears,minds, and hearts of followers, leaders cannot function effecti ely. hanges in the workplace also highlight the need for e amining followership in

more depth. %he traditional organi)ational hierarchy between leaders and theirfollowers has eroded o er time thanks to e panding social networks and thegrowing empowerment of followers through their ability to access informationmore easily >ross ? Parker, +''/@ -rown, +''30. For e ample, employees nowha e access to information about their company and its competitors ia the;nternet that they were ne er pri y to in the past. As -rown +''30 obser ed,leaders are !no longer the e clusi e source of ital information about theircompanies or fields@ therefore they can no longer e pect to be followed blindly bytheir now well7informed, more skeptical ranks$ p. 6:0. Furthermore, theincidents at such companies as nron, (orld>om, and Adelphia ha e ledfollowers to Buestion and distrust top leadership. Mergers, acBuisitions, anddownsi)ing ha e also accounted for more aded followers. ;n addition, Maccoby

+''/0 stated that !the changing structure of families 7 more single7parenthomes, dual working parents, and so on 7 ha e begun to create worken ironments where people alue traditional leaders less$ p. &90. Perhaps thiscoincides with the decline in respect for authority figures in general. (hate erthe reason, these changes signal the need to ree aluate the tendency to focuson leadership to the e clusion of followership.

+


7/30


8/30

alues and beliefs between the follower and leader, the moti ational need forempowerment may not be as high because the follower is dri en by the bondwith the leader Mumford, =ansereau, ? 8ammarino, +'''0. %he research oncharismatic leadership suggests that followers" self7concepts may also berele ant in determining their moti ations to follow certain leaders 4owell and


9/30

Along these lines, hrhart and Elein +''10 e amined the follower7leaderrelationship to determine the influence of alues and personality. %he resultsindicated that 10 followers had different responses to the same leader beha iors,and +0 followers looked for leaders whose alues matched their own. Followerswho were achie ement7oriented and risk takers preferred the charismatic leader,as did followers who liked to participate in decision making. According to hrhart

and Elein, charismatic leaders helped followers satisfy their need for in ol ementand accomplishment by letting followers take an acti e role in decision making.Followers who alued interpersonal relations matched up with relationship7oriented leaders who could meet some of their interpersonal needs. Followerswho alued achie ement and structure were the best match for task7orientedleaders, because they pro ided stability and security.

%he foundation of a producti e follower7leader relationship is mutual trust. ;n ahealthy organi)ation, followers trust leaders to act in their best interest. ;n athree7year sur ey of &,*'' workers, Froggatt +''10 found that companies withemployees who reported high le els of trust in their leaders had a 1': percent

three7year return to shareholders. >on ersely, companies with employeesreporting low trust le els in leadership only had a 66 percent return.

Effective Followers versus Ineffective Followers

A few researchers ha e e amined the characteristics of followers in an attempt topinpoint what distinguishes good followers from bad ones. Eelley 19::0proposed that there are four essential Bualities that effecti e followers share.First, effecti e followers manage themsel es well. %his Buality refers to theability to determine one"s own goals within a large conte t and to decide whatrole to take at any gi en time.


10/30

company is going down the wrong road, it can get there faster if there are nofollowers informing the leaders that they took a wrong turn.

>haleff 199*0 claims that effecti e followers are cooperati e and collaborati e,Bualities that are essential to all human progress. %hey think for and managethemsel es and carry out duties with asserti eness and energy. For e ample,championship7le el sports teams are composed of followers who know when to

follow the game plan and when to inno ate and think for themsel es. ffecti efollowers are well7balanced and responsible human resources who can succeedwithout strong leadership because they are committed to a purpose, principle, orperson outside themsel es. Eelley"s 19::0 research also found that manyfollowers belie e they offer as much alue to organi)ations as leaders do.

ffecti e followers are distinguishable from ineffecti e followers by theirenthusiasm and self7reliant participation in the pursuit of organi)ational goals.

According to -lackshear +''30, !the Hideal" follower is willing and able to helpde elop and sustain the best organi)ational performance$ p. +*0. ;neffecti efollowers are often critical, cynical, apathetic, and alienated@ many will only do

what is specifically reBuested of them. ;nstead of figuring out what they can do,ineffecti e followers focus on what can go wrong and what is beyond their control4elmstetter, 199:0. %hey tend to doubt themsel es and, because they dwell on

problems rather than solutions, they most often see their fears materiali)e. According to Delson +''10, they become e perts at the !the blame game,$blaming e erybody around them for problems. %hese attitudes gradually spreadto other departments, and the result is low morale, lack of production, and losthuman potential Cudin ? Cancaster, 199'0.

Models of Followership and Leadership

%o bring together the research on followership and leadership, a model waschosen from each area. %he first model is Eelley"s 199+0 followership modelwhich categori)es followers according to dimensions of thinking and acting. %hesecond model is drawn from 4ersey and -lanchard"s 19:+0 situationalleadership theory which categori)es leadership style based on the degree ofrelationship7oriented and task7oriented beha ior displayed by the leader.

Kelleys Model of Followership

Eelley 199+0 categori)ed followers according to the dimensions of thinking andacting. Followers who are independent, critical thinkers consider the impact oftheir actions, are willing to be creati e and inno ati e, and may offer criticism.=ependent, uncritical thinkers only do what they are told and accept the leader"sthinking. %he second dimension, acting, is used to determine what sense ofownership the follower demonstrates. An acti e follower takes initiati e indecision making, while a passi e follower"s in ol ement is limited to being toldwhat to do. =espite the fact that Eelley created fi e different subsets of followerswith the fifth subset pragmatists0 encompassing some of the characteristics ofthe other four, this analysis will only use the standard four7Buadrant subset based

6


11/30

on Eelley"s definitions Figure 10. %his will enable the use of clear7cut distinctionsbetween follower types.

%he following is a summary of the beha ioral characteristics of the four follower types from Eelley, 199+02

Alienated followers are ma ericks who ha e a healthy skepticism of the

organi)ation. %hey are capable, but cynical.Conformist followers are the !yes people$ of the organi)ations. %hey are eryacti e at doing the organi)ation"s work and will acti ely follow orders.Passive followers rely on leaders to do the thinking for them. %hey also reBuireconstant direction.E emplar! followers are independent, inno ati e, and willing to Buestionleadership. %his type of follower is critical to organi)ational success. emplaryfollowers know how to work well with other cohorts and present themsel esconsistently to all who come into contact with them.

Fi"ure #$ %elle!&s di'erent t!pes of followers


12/30

Hersey and Blanchards Situational Leadership Theory

4ersey and -lanchard"s 19:+0 situational leadership theory argued thatsuccessful leadership is achie ed by selecting a style based on followerreadiness. %he leader is directed to adopt one of four styles based on thedegree of relationship7 and task7oriented beha ior reBuired by the situation. For

the purposes of this paper, the four styles will be iewed as static within theBuadrants of this two dimensional model, although they are often treated as acontinuum of sorts Figure +0. %he four leadership styles consist of %elling,


13/30

Fi"ure -$ Herse! and .lan)hard&s Situational Leadership /uadrants


14/30

An Inte"rated Model of Followership and Leadership St!les

%he final goal in this paper is to integrate the two models described abo e. %heidea is to show how followership and leadership research can be combined forpractical purposes, most specifically to increase follower producti ity. onformistfollowers with their !will do as told$ attitude can be placed in the telling styleBuadrant, which characteri)es a leadership style that focuses on pro idingspecific instructions and closely monitoring performance. emplary followerscan be positioned in the delegating style Buadrant where the leader turns o er

1'


15/30

responsibility for decisions and implementation. emplary followers are up to thechallenge of this category and should flourish to the benefit of theorgani)ation. -y meshing the styles of leaders and followers, organi)ations canma imi)e the strengths and minimi)e the weaknesses of leader7followerrelationships. Figure / displays recommended beha iors for leaders andfollowers in each Buadrant of the new model.

Followership plays a ital role at e ery le el of an organi)ation. Furthering theeffecti eness of followers reBuires doing away with the misconception thatleaders do all of the thinking and followers merely carry out commands. %hesemisconceptions can become self7fulfilling prophecies and organi)ations can relytoo much on leaders. %his model pro ides the framework to alle iate thosemisconceptions. As the model indicates, followers engage in different le els ofcritical thinking, and these can be matched with appropriate leaders.Furthermore, in each Buadrant, there needs to be some fle ibility for both theleader and the follower. %his stretching will cause growth for the indi iduals andfor the organi)ation.

Fi"ure 2$ .ehaviors re)ommended for optimum mat)hin" of st!lesLeadership Leader .ehaviors Follower .ehaviors Followership/uadrant Re)ommended Re)ommended /uadrant

Participating %he inclusion of -ecoming more Alienatedfollowers in decision in ol ed throughmaking to cause participation.alienated followers to >hanging insider s.take ownership outsider mindset.


16/30

+is)ussion and Appli)ation

As we ha e seen, the follower7leader relationship does not operate in a acuum.Ceaders sometimes function as followers, and followers sometimes function asleaders. As leaders daily mo e back and forth between the two roles, this makesit e en more imperati e that the study of followership continues. Followers andleaders are linked together in interrelated roles and are dependent on each other.

>learly, the importance of followers cannot be underestimated. (hileorgani)ations continue to de ote time and money to the de elopment ofleadership, followership is what enables that leadership the opportunity tosucceed. %he legendary I>CA basketball coach, John (ooden, is Buoted by-uckingham and >offman 19990 as saying#

!Do matter how you total success in the coaching profession, it all comes downto a single factor 7 talent. %here may be a hundred great coaches of whom youha e ne er heard#who will ne er recei e the acclaim they deser e simplybecause they ha e not been blessed with the talent. Although not e ery coachcan win consistently with talent, no coach can win without it$ p. 1'*0.

%his passage speaks about team sports, but the theme of !talent$ is analogous tofollowers in an organi)ation. >reating the right en ironment and de elopingfollowers into high performers should be a primary ob ecti e of e eryorgani)ation. %his argument is supported by research that has e aminedfollower effecti eness in relation to situational fa orability Miller, -utler, and>osentino, +''/0. -uilding relations with followers fosters the highest le el oforgani)ational commitment llis, +''/0, which helps to create a unifiedorgani)ation. Also, organi)ational commitment is positi ely related to obproducti ity and negati ely related to both absenteeism and turno er 5obbins,+''*0.

%he integrated model of followership and leadership styles can be applied andmatched to fit different organi)ational cultures and goals. rgani)ations maytend to ha e certain predominant leader andKor follower types, and so thespecific organi)ation will ha e to fit the two types together. ;t may be useful fororgani)ations to e periment with the differences between the arious types ofleader and follower for short periods of time to obser e producti ity le els. ncethat information has been analy)ed, it should guide future research on how bestto continue matching leader and follower styles. %he optimal way to test how theintegrated model would benefit the organi)ation is to conduct the research in acontrolled en ironment where all the ariables are eBual. %his application of the

model can then be better e amined for the appropriate matching of particularstyles. %here may be an instance, for e ample, where a follower with dominantconformist characteristics might be more producti e with a leader who e hibitsstrong selling attributes, instead of the traits of a telling leadership style. %hemodel is fle ible enough to allow for ad ustments in the match7ups of followersand leaders.

1+


17/30

Limitations of the Model

(hile this integrated model of followership and leadership styles makes sensefrom an intuiti e standpoint, there is little e idence to support it. 5esearch willneed to be done to test its propositions. Also, while leaders and followers oftenha e a dominant style, they do not tend to use one style in all situations. %hus,the en ironment can skew the results of the Buadrant match7ups that we

propose. Furthermore, the matching of leaders and followers does not imply thatleaders will only hire followers who work and think in their own image to makethem feel more comfortable >hatman, 19910. ;t does, howe er, raise thepossibility of groupthink Janis, 19:+0. 4a ing either differing iewpoints orsimilar styles, howe er, has not re ealed any consistent effects on performance

Cau ? Murnighan, 199:0. (ith that in mind, this model needs to be implementedand studied further to alidate the pro ected increase in producti ity.

Another issue in the future study of matching followers to leaders is to isolate theariables that might alter the results. For e ample, will all leaders be gi en the

same type of direction in working with followers and ice7 ersaL All of thisresearch can come at a cost to organi)ations that are not willing to risk possible

short7term pains for long7term gains.

13


18/30

LE !E"SHI#

3ood leaders are not ne)essaril! "ood mana"ers( nor are "ood mana"ersessaril!

"ood leaders4 A))ordin" to %otter( mana"ers )ontrol )omple it! and leadersdu)e )han"e4

Leaders wor* for )han"e5 mana"ers advo)ate sta0ilit!4 Leaders and mana"ersr alon" four

distin)t personalit! dimensions$ attitudes toward "oals( )on)eptions of*(relationships

with others( and sense of self4

EARLY TRAIT THEORIES

,he 6rst studies of leadership attempted to identif! what ph!si)alattri0utes( personalit! )hara)teristi)s( and a0ilities( distin"uishedleaders from other mem0ers

of a "roup4

Ph!si)al attri0utes mentioned as leadership traits in)luded hei"ht(wei"ht( ph!si7ue( ener"!( health and appearan)e4 ,here are 0iases forand a"ainst )ertain t!pes of ph!si)al attri0utes( !et the resear)h doesnot indi)ate that these attri0utes are inherentl! 0etter or ne)essaril! aleadership )hara)teristi)4

Personalit! )hara)teristi)s have 0een useful( and a0ilit! measurementsare the )losest of the three )ate"ories to 0ein" relevant4 However(

trait resear)h has not 0een )on)lusive( whi)h has led to the otherapproa)hes

des)ri0ed in the followin" se)tions4


19/30

Lew in Studies

%urt Lewin identi6ed three leadership st!les$ auto)rati)( demo)rati)(and laisse89faire4 Autocratic leaders use stron"( dire)tive( )ontrollin"a)tions to enfor)e the rules( re"ulations( and relationships in the wor*environment4 Students ma! view militar! leadership as auto)rati)(althou"h this is a stereot!pe that has )han"ed4

A democratic leader ta*es )olla0orative( responsive( intera)tive

a)tions with followers )on)ernin" the wor* and wor* environment4 ,he laissez-faire leader

fails to a))ept the responsi0ilit! of the position4 Man! students :andadults; )onfuse laisse89faire and demo)rati) leadership st!les4

B. Ohio State Studies

;eadership behavior is o ten deter*ined by the ;eader Behavior $es riptionuestionnaire /;B$ 3, #hi h identi ies the di*ensions o initiatin+ stru ture andonsideration. A leader #ith an initiating structure st/5e de ines and or+ani es #or

relationships and roles, and is lear about #ays o +ettin+ thin+s done. In ontrast, the


20/30


21/30

.!ichi"an Studies

Similarl!( studies at the =niversit! of Mi)hi"an identi6ed the twomensions referred

to as emplo!ee oriented and produ)tion oriented4 A produ)tionorientation

fo)uses on "ettin" the wor* done( with )onstant in>uen)e attempts 0!the leader4

An emplo!ee orientation fo)uses on relationships and )on)ern forpeople and their needs4

#.The Leadershi$ %rid& A ontem$orar' E(tension

.la*e and Mouton developed the Leadership 3rid 0ased on the OhioState leadership studies4 ,he Leadershi$ %rid is a matri that

divides t!pes of leaders into levels of )on)ern for either produ)tion orpeople4 ,he fo)us( in this )ase( is on the leader&s attitudes4

With further development( the ori"inal 6ve dimensions of the "rid have0een

e panded to seven4 ,hese dimensions in)lude$ or"anization manmana"er )*+*,+ a mana"er with 0alan)ed )on)ern for people andprodu)tion 0ut )ommitment

to neither5 authorit'-com$liance mana"er ) + ,+ a mana"er whoemphasi8es e?)ient produ)tion5 countr'-clu/ mana"er ) + ,+ amana"er who )reates a happ!(


22/30

)omforta0le wor* environment5 team mana"er ) + ,+ a mana"erwho 0uilds a hi"hl! produ)tive team of )ommitted people5im$o0erished mana"er ) + ,+ a mana"er who e erts @ust enou"he'ort toavoid 0ein" 6red5 $aternalistic 1father 2nows /est3mana"er ) 4 ,+ a mana"er who uses 0oth rewards and punishments5and o$$ortunistic 1what5s in it for me3 mana"er )O$$,+ amana"er who uses whatever st!le most 0ene6ts him or her4#

O6TI6%E6 Y THEORIES

Contin"en)! theories of leadership are )on)erned with identif!in"situationall!

spe)i6) )onditions in whi)h leaders with parti)ular traits are mosttive4 In

)ontin"en)! theories( traits must 0e )onsidered in the )onte t of theation(

rather than in isolation4

A. 7iedler8s ontin"enc' Theor'

FiedlerBs theor! su""ests that leaders are either tas* oriented orrelationship oriented( dependin" on how the! o0tain their primar!need "rati6)ation4 ,as*9oriented leaders are primaril! "rati6ed 0!a))omplishin" tas*s( whereas relationship9oriented


23/30

leaders are "rati6ed 0! positive( )omforta0le interpersonalrelationships4 ,he e'e)tiveness of the st!le results from the situationin whi)h it is ena)ted4

,o determine the 6t( Fiedler developed the LPC( or least $referredcowor2er+ 7uestionnaire to determine the t!pe of person with whi)h aleader least prefers

to wor* with4 Tas2 structure refers to the num0er and )larit! of rules(re"ulations(

and pro)edures for "ettin" the wor* done4 9osition $ower refers tothe leader&s le"itimate authorit! to evaluate and reward performan)e(punish errors( and demote "roup mem0ers4 ,he 7ualit! of leader:mem/er relations is measured 0! the 3roup9Atmosphere S)ale4

#

Fiedler proposes that it is unli*el! that a leader will )han"e 0ehavior to6t

the situation4 Conse7uentl!( if possi0le( the situation should 0ealtered

to )omplement the leaderBs st!le4 ,his )ontin"en)! theor!emphasi8es the

)ontri0ution of the leaderBs situation4 ,he situation has threedimensions$

tas* stru)ture( position power( and leaderDmem0er relations4 Afavoura0le

leadership situation is one that has a stru)tured tas*( stron" positionpower(


24/30

and "ood leaderDmem0er relations4 ,as*9oriented leaders are moree'e)tive

in either hi"hl! favora0le or hi"hl! unfavora0le situations4Relationship9oriented

leaders are more e'e)tive in moderatel! favora0le situations4

. The 9ath:%oal Theor'

PathD"oal theor! sets forth four leader 0ehavior st!les from whi)h theleader

sele)ts the most appropriate st!le to help followers )larif! the pathsthat lead

them to wor* and personal "oals4 ,he four st!les are$ dire)tive(supportive( parti)ipative( and a)hievement oriented4 ,he )hoi)e ofst!les must 0e made

with the spe)i6) followers and wor* environment in mind4 ,his theor!is

0ased on the e pe)tan)! theor! of motivation4


25/30

#. ;room-Yetton-


26/30

#

B. Su/stitutes for Leadershi$

,he )entral idea of this theor! is that some situations )an neutrali8e orrepla)e

leader 0ehavior4 Satisf!in" tas*s( hi"h s*ill on the part of theemplo!ee( team

)ohesiveness( and formal )ontrols are some thin"s that )an su0stitutefor leadership4

. Transformational Leadershi$

,ransformational leaders motivate followers to a)hieve hi"h levels ofperforman)e

0! )onvertin" vision into realit! and inspirin" followers to performa0ove and

0e!ond the )all of dut!4 ,ransformational leaders rel! on their personalattri0utes rather than their position in motivatin" their followers4

#. harismatic Leadershi$


27/30

harismatic leadershi$ is )hara)teri8ed 0! the use of personala0ilities and talents

that have a profound and e traordinar! e'e)t on followers4 ,he)harismati)

leaders rel! heavil! on referent power( and their uni7ue and powerful"ifts "enerate

"reat in>uen)e with followers4 ,his parti)ularl! stron" a0ilit! toin>uen)e followers

)an lead to hi"h levels of a)hievement( 0ut )an also lead to "reatharm for the

followers or others4

-G

;III.E!ER%I6% ISS=ES I6 LEA#ERSHI9

Several issues have emer"ed re)entl! from leadership resear)h thatrrant dis)ussion4

,hese issues in)lude emotional intelli"en)e( trust( virtual teams(men leaders( and

servant leadership4

A0 Em,ti,na5 Inte55igence

Emotional intelli"en)e is the a0ilit! to re)o"ni8e and mana"e emotionin oneself


28/30

and in others4 It in)ludes several )ompeten)ies( su)h as self9awareness( empath!( adapta0ilit!( and self9)on6den)e4

B. Trust

,rust is the willin"ness to ma*e oneself vulnera0le to the a)tions of

others( anessential element in leadership4 ,rustworthiness is one of the)ompeten)ies in emotional intelli"en)e4

-#

. Leadin" ;irtual Teams

irtual teams have mem0ers in di'erent or"ani8ations( or di'erent

parts of

the same or"ani8ation( in diverse "eo"raphi) lo)ations4 As a result(the!

ma! not have shared understandin"s of pro0lems( norms( wor*distri0ution(


29/30


30/30

The leader leads by onsent o the +roup. The position o leader

has obvious evolutionary advanta+es. A +ood leader has +reat respe t and presti+e, and this

*ay translate into +reater privile+es and *ore se8ual liaisons.

COJCL=SIOJ

%his paper and the matching of followership and leadership styles reinforce

%hemes identified in the literature on the relationships between followers and-y implementing an integrated model of followership and leadership styles,Aswell as linking the purpose to strategic organi)ational goals, leaders shouldbecome more effecti e because of their impro edunderstanding of the follower7leader relationship.

;n addition, the increased commitment of followers should result ina talent bank for future leaders as followers are mentored by the leader in

learning to match styles in working relationships. %his paper pro ides a modelthat can satisfy the e change between the leader and follower, resulting in amatch that can pro ide more gratification to the parties in ol ed and set the

stage for higher performance. +3

Documents

Followership and Leadership