The Case for Transcendent Followership

8/10/2019 The Case for Transcendent Followership

1/21

http://lea.sagepub.com/Leadership

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1742715012447006

2013 9: 87LeadershipMiguel Pina e Cunha, Armnio Rego, Stewart Clegg and Pedro Neves

The case for transcendent followership

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:LeadershipAdditional services and information for

http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Feb 20, 2013Version of Record>>

by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from by saba muneer on October 29, 2013lea.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87http://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.refs.htmlhttp://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.full.pdfhttp://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.full.pdfhttp://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://lea.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://lea.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://lea.sagepub.com/content/9/1/87http://lea.sagepub.com/


2/21

Article

The case for transcendent

followership

Miguel Pina e CunhaNova School of Business and Economics, Portugal

Armenio RegoUniversidade de Aveiro, Portugal

Stewart Clegg

Centre for Management and Organization Studies, University of Technology, Sydney, Austrialia;Nova School of Business and Economics, Portugal

Pedro NevesNova School of Business and Economics, Portugal

Abstract

Based on the model of transcendent leadership, we suggest that subordinates need to display

competences that mirror those of their leaders and propose transcendent followership as a frame-work for the responsibilities of followers in contemporary organizational environments. A tran-scendent follower is someone who expresses competence in terms of their management ofrelations with self, others and organization. Competence in the domain of self refers to beingself-aware and proactive in developing individual strengths. Competence in the domain of othersrefers to the processes of interpersonal impact, in relation to leaders and peers. Competence inthe domain of organization refers to collective maintenance and change. The article offers anintegrated view of the roles and responsibilities of followers in dynamic organizational environ-ments, presenting them as fellows rather than subordinates.

Keywords

Leadership, followership, fellowship, transcendent followers

Introduction

Accounts of organizations in terms of leadership tend to be couched in terms of the qualities

of the leader defining an era, such as the Harvard Business Review (2012) list of great

Corresponding author:Miguel Pina e Cunha, Nova School of Business and Economics, Rua Marques de Fronteira, 20, 1099-038 Lisboa, Portugal.

Email: [email protected]

Leadership

9(1) 87106

! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1742715012447006

lea.sagepub.com


3/21

American leaders of the 20th century: the leader is the dominant term, reflecting a historical

view strikingly similar to a view of general history as a succession of rulers and governments.

In such a view great men (and it is usually men) are taken to characterize a whole era and its

significant events. Defining an organizational era in terms of great leaders is but one sign of

what has been termed the romance of leadership (Meindl et al., 1985). In management andorganization theory further indicators of the romance of leadership are the excessive atten-

tion paid to the characteristics, traits and styles of leaders, as well as the conspicuous absence

of attention to followers (Burns, 1978; Northouse, 2004; Yukl and Van Fleet, 1992). The

follower is taken to be a tabula rasa to be imprinted by the leader and as such, largely

irrelevant (as pointed out by Avolio et al., 2009: 434; see also Shamir, 1997).

By contrast, in line with a number of previous works (e.g. Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995;

Kupers and Weibler, 2008; Lichtenstein and Plowman, 2009; Shamir, 2007), we regard

leadership as arelationalprocess, co-produced by leaders and followers engaged in a relation

of mutuality (Vlachoutsicos, 2011: 124). By follower we refer here to those who, in terms

of relative position in the hierarchy, occupy positions of lesser responsibility. A middle

manager is a follower when interacting with the CEO but a leader when interacting with

someone from outside the managerial ranks. Leadership and followership are thus relational

categories rather than absolutes and express their characteristics in relation. Followership

should thus be positioned in the relationship stream of leadership theories (Graen and Uhl-

Bien, 1995: 54). We contribute to the study of the process of leadership involving leaders and

followers in context, by focusing on the understudied role of followers, especially on the

importance of followers competences at multiple levels.

We explore the relevance of the concept of transcendent followership, which is derived

from the notion of transcendent leadership, advanced by Crossan, Vera and Nanjad (2008).

We directly transpose the model advanced by Crossan and her colleagues to the case of

followership. Our intention is clear: to suggest that, in dynamic environments, the roles and

responsibilities of followers become progressively akin to those of leaders and have an

importance that transcends dyadic relationships with leaders (Makela, 2009). As a result,

much of what Crossan et al. argue about leaders can actually be sustained for the case of

followers. To test this possibility, we build on Crossan et al.s ideas and raise eight propos-

itions concerning transcendent followership.

We begin this article by considering the new roles of followers in dynamic, fast-changing

organizational environments. We join the ongoing debate about the reconsideration of the

role of followership in the process of leadership (Baker, 2007) and share with some previous

work the assumption that leader and follower should be considered in mutual relation (e.g.

Collinson, 2006). Following the three-level structure proposed by Crossan et al., we first

examine followership competence at the level of the self, focusing on the roles of followers as

independent agents. We then address the importance of followership competence at the level

of others and organization. To conclude, we discuss implications for research and

management.

Followership as part of the process usually known as leadership

The leadership literature has produced an enormous literature on how to be a good leader.

But there is only a meager literature a very meager literature on how to be a good

follower (Kellerman, 2008: 72). Leadership theories include reference to the importance of

those led and the context in which the process takes place. Theories developed in the 1960s

88 Leadership 9(1)


4/21

and 1970s, such as contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967) and leadermember exchange (LMX)

theory (Dansereau et al., 1975; Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), introduced examinations of the

role of followers in the leadership process. But, even in these cases, followers were seen as

being fundamentally important only to the extent that positioning them thus explained the

action and impact of leaders (Shamir, 2007).Organizational members in followership positions may actually display proactive behav-

iours that do not conform to conventionally docile notions of followership. Followers can

self-regulate (Lord et al., 2010), be proactive (Li et al., 2010), and consistently express per-

sonal initiative (Carsten et al., 2010; Frese and Fay, 2001). In doing so, they act as organ-

izational citizens (Organ, 1997), able to exercise upward influence (Farmer et al., 1997;

Mowday, 1978) and play an active role in initiating organizational change (Morrison and

Phelps, 1999), a task normally associated with leadership. In summary, followers may

engage in workplace initiatives that are influential and produce change (Campbell, 2000).

There is evidently more to the followership part of leadership processes than is usually

acknowledged by traditional, leader-centric theories of leadership. For example, formal

leaders who see their roles as facilitators of change rather than as guardians of the hierarchy

can create followers that play leadership roles (e.g. Lichtenstein and Plowman, 2009).

Followership is a dynamic complex process that takes many shapes, with participants,

roles, and influences changing over time (Denis et al., 2001, 2010). Three key points of

difference emerge when we consider leader/follower relations as a dynamic process: (a)

leaders and followers may substitute, neutralize, or complement each other; (b) leader-

ship/followership may be a collective endeavour rather than something dominated by for-

mally designated leaders; and (c) followers can act in different ways and display diverse

forms of influence. We focus especially on this latter dimension: the way followers enact

their role, the impact of their choices in the process of leadership and their influence in the

power circuitry that defines organizations in general and the leadership process in particular.

Transcendent followers

Defining terms, Kellerman (2008) wrote that followers are people who have less power,

authority, and influence than do their superiors and who therefore, usually, but not invari-

ably, fall into line. Followership itself is a process that entails the response of those in

subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior positions (leaders). However, followers

may also initiate leadership actions, at least if leadership is defined as a process of influence

toward the accomplishment of goals (Houghton et al., 2003: 124). As Rost (1995: 134)

pointed out, leadership at its best is a relation founded upon mutual purposes. Kellerman

noted, in a simple zero-sum conception, that followers are gaining power and influence

while leaders are losing power and influence (2008: 18), whereas Nye (2008) argued that

followers have more power than ever before. While the notion of power and influence as

things that one can possess is simplistic, because power and influence are nothing if not

inherently relational (Clegg and Haugaard, 2009), rather than being a manifestation of

possessive individualism (Macpherson, 1962), the idea is clear enough: organizational rela-

tionships are becoming less asymmetrical. In summary, as Kellerman (2008: 25) pointed out,

this is the time of the follower.

Followers should thus be capable of articulating competing demands and transcending

multiple levels of competence by revealing independent thinking in the self domain; they

express competence in the domain of others by simultaneously caring about the leader and

Cunha et al. 89


5/21

stretching his/her views; they show competence in the domain of the organization by sim-

ultaneously maintaining and changing its practices. It is in this sense that followers may have

a strategic role contributing to the creation of organizations characterized by both self-

discipline and a learning orientation. Transcendent followers are those who excel at multiple

levels in fruitful relations of self, others and organization. The relation to transcendentleaders is evident: Crossan et al. (2008) defined transcendent leaders as those who lead

within and amongst the levels of self, others and organization (2008: 570). We consider

that organizations also need transcendent followers, people that express high levels of com-

petence within and among the levels of self, others and organization.

Followership as the domain of self

Followers competent at the level of self have a capacity to self-manage (Manz and Sims,

1980). These followers have the means necessary to direct their own activities effectively

toward the achievement of organizational goals. Traditionally, however, notions of being

followers or employees have been associated with the practice of obedience rather than with

self-awareness and self-management.

The category of a follower is not equivalent to that of an employee. An employee is

usually expected to respond positively to incentive schemes, corporate culture and other

techniques that frame their organizational relations. A follower, by definition, is, in prin-

ciple, someone free to choose to follow or not because their choice to follow or not implies

judgement of the qualities of leadership: their loyalties can shift. They are not discursively

fixed, ideologically, in a compliant role, as simply employees for whom conformance is

shown, at a minimum, by being there at work. More is expected of followers than mere

presence.

Authors such as Hamel (2007) and Carney and Getz (2009) have built on the notion that,

indeed, more is demanded of employees: they have abandoned traditional modes of mana-

ging and organizing in favour of newer models in which, normatively, employees are no

longer seen as a mass of interchangeable parts but should be viewed as individuals. Hamel

sees the impact of this change as significant, especially for companies that organize around

the assumption of worker initiative rather than around obedience. He illustrates the point

with the case of Toyota, a company that represents first-line employees as problem-solvers

and change agents (Hamel, 2006: 74). Followers empower leaders by relationally conjoining

their projects to those of the leader and selectively adapting the leaders message to their

roles: they act as disciples, spreading the word, unless, like Judas, they turn traitor because

their followership is based on premises that are disappointed.

Where individuals no longer necessarily rely on organizations to manage their careers

(Gratton, 2004) and where the nature of the employment relationship is not unilaterally

defined for them (Rousseau, 2005), change is afoot. Some organizations are discovering new

roles for followers, positing that individuals are able to manage themselves and to remain

true to their values and beliefs sometimes even in opposition to the organization. Followers

who are competent in the domain of the self are those who think independently and try to

protect and value their human capital. As Kelley observed (1988: 144), the key to being an

effective follower is the ability to think for one-self to exercise control and independence

and to work without close supervision. Good followers are people to whom a leader can

safely delegate responsibility, people who anticipate needs at their own level of competence

and authority.

90 Leadership 9(1)


6/21

To remain faithful to ones open and fluid identity, followership demands some degree of

self-leadership. Self-leadership is the process through which people influence themselves to

achieve the self-direction and self-motivation needed to perform (Houghton et al., 2003:

126). Approaches to organizational development based upon self-development, such as

Kaizen (Imai, 1986), rely to some extent on the principle of self-criticism (Chia, 2003). Inorder to contribute to organizational improvement, one needs to start by developing oneself,

a challenge that requires self-awareness and self-regulation. Development of self-awareness

is particularly important because emotional aspects that bubble under, below the awareness

of the participants, often influence leadership dynamics (Lord et al., 1999). Competence at

the level of self is particularly important for organizational learning in highly competitive

environments and depends critically on characteristics such as self-awareness, independent

thinking and self-management. Facilitating learning and creativity demands the recognition

of organizational respect for employee autonomy. It is the richness of independent thinking

and the need to understand why rather than how that makes organizational learning

and creative discovery possible (Carney and Getz, 2009).

When individuals accept traditional modes of thinking and doing, they will replicate past

practices, not introducing the variation that is necessary for improvement and renewal.

Followers who excel at the level of self-management are aware of their strengths and weak-

nesses, have an interest in and assume responsibility for, the development of personal

competence and mastery (Kelley, 1992; Senge et al., 1994). Employees committed to self-

development may harm rather than protect their ego as they step outside comfort zones,

redefining boundaries and relevant boundary objects over which they have less control

(Ashforth and Black, 1996; Ashforth and Tsui, 1991). They see their role as active in the

organization and engage in conversations within themselves (Senge et al., 1994: 195). Being

responsible self-managers, they have a motive to increase the value of their human capital. In

this sense, they are no longer traditionally subordinated employees but rather emancipated

members of their organizations: they choose to engage rather than being controlled (Gratton

and Ghoshal, 2003). Competence at the level of self is therefore crucial to assess the quality

of individual contributions to the organization, to evaluate the return on ones investment in

the organization and to preserve employability.

Followership and the domain of others

We refer to the capacity to build and sustain rich, constructive relationships with peers and

leaders as the domain of others. Follower competence in the domain of others refers to the

skills involved in lateral and upward relationships. Rich relationships with peers and leaders

are a potential source of social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). Followers are a crucial

part in the process of developing and sustaining social capital. To protect the organizations

flexibility in dynamic environments, organizations need to create relational processes based

on trust rather than hierarchical fiat. Trust, as a form of social capital, decreases transaction

costs, expands behavioural repertoires and helps to build further trust (Bromiley and

Cummings, 1996; Dasgupta, 1988; Kramer, 1999), not only in subordinateleader relation-

ships, but also in lateral relationships, as is the case of teams (Costa, 2003).

A relational view of leadership considers not only the richness of relationships between

leaders and followers (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995) but also the richness of the relationships

between followers. Constructive relationships help the organization to create spirals of posi-

tivity (Cunha et al., 2009), whereas low-trust relationships create defensiveness and

Cunha et al. 91


7/21

protection from others (Edmondson, 1999). The creation of organizational environments

rich in trust, while it is influenced by leaders, is crucially affected by the capacity of peers to

manage each other in a positive way. Organizational members who express other-oriented

behaviours, such as citizenship tendencies (Grant and Mayer, 2009), acts of compassion

(Lilius et al., 2008), and gratitude (McCullough et al., 2002), display competence in thedomain of others, which also requires emotional intelligence, namely understanding

others emotions and empathy (Goleman, 1998; Wolff et al., 2002), and social intelligence

(Zaccaro et al., 1991).

Followers with competence in the domain of others recognize the importance of how we

handle ourselves and each other (Goleman, 1998: 3) and have been shown to help in the

building of positive relationships with other organizational members, including leaders and

peers (Goleman, 1998; Grewal and Salovey, 2005), as well as with customers (Kernbach and

Schutte, 2005; Weng, 2008). Emotionally intelligent followers co-lead teams in the path to

the creation of social capital and sometimes counter the negative effects produced by leaders

(Druskat and Wolff, 2001; Goleman and Boyatzis, 2008). In this perspective, followers must

be competent at the level of others, especially at the level of the team. Team dynamics, in

fact, have a life of their own, supplanting the leaders influence in a relational perspective

(e.g. Kets de Vries, 2011). Good teams may be those that build on top of the leaders

strengths and neutralize the leaders weaknesses.

For organizations competing in highly dynamic environments, these types of relationships

may be crucial because, by increasing social capital, they facilitate adaptation by making the

organization more organic and resilient, characteristics that are particularly important in

fast-changing environments. Beunza and Starks (2003) ethnography of the recovery of a

lower Manhattan trading room after the 9/11 attacks showed how resilience critically

depends on strong personal attachments rather than on purely professional/functional rela-

tionships (see also how high-quality relationships facilitate resilience in Caza and Milton,

2011). This extreme case is in line with other research showing that technical competence at

the individual level is insufficient to create competence at higher levels, namely at the level of

interactions (Collins, 2001).

Followership at the organizational level

Followership also manifests itself at the organizational level. Good followers have been

presented as critical for several organizational functions, including environmental scanning

(Day and Shoemaker, 2004), performing extra-role behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2000),

responding to unexpected situations that may disrupt the service standards (Cunha et al.,

2009), and others with systemic relevance. Good organizational functioning may be facili-

tated by followers who represent themselves as organizational citizens and who express an

interest in helping the organization. Where followers show dedication to the organization it

tends to be taken positively. Numerous accounts of the importance of these behaviours can

be considered. Day and Schoemaker (2008) cite the episode of the receptionist who redir-

ected the attention and the research of experimenters in a pharmaceutical company from a

failing scientific course to a successful one, suggesting that vigilant followers may help to

build vigilant organizations.

Followers can contribute by beingproactive(Frese and Fay, 2001). Given the poor envir-

onmental record of their company, a small aggregate of employees started Ben and Jerrys

pro-environmental initiatives. Environmental concerns, which became an important

92 Leadership 9(1)


8/21

component of the companys identity, were in fact ignited without the approval or even the

knowledge of top managers (Mirvis, 1994). The initiative of a group of tempered radicals

(Meyerson and Scully, 1995) with strong environmental values is a further example of

proactiveness. Instead of waiting for managerial action to solve what they viewed as a

problem of flawed environmental practice, these followers took the issue as their own andmade change happen.

Finally, followers can bepersistent, in other words be capable of carrying on in the face of

resistance and setbacks. One of the best-known examples of persistence that had an organ-

izational outcome was the development of Post-It Notes at 3 M. The story of the Post-It

Note shows a long process of internal venturing before the eventual launch of what became a

big hit. Consider the description of Art Fry (1987), who participated in the process: Post-It

Notes wouldnt have gotten anywhere if I had stopped with submitting the idea and hadnt

gone to the work of getting materials and making samples. The old story that invention is

10% inspiration and 90% perspiration is true and my perspiration on this project had just

begun. Stories of persistence can also be found in skunk works, unapproved projects that

are developed informally by intrapreneurs that introduce unplanned variation that may end

up benefitting the organization despite authoritative resistance to unofficial projects

(Gwynne, 1997).

The case for transcendent followership

Transcendent followers are those who contribute within and across each of the levels of self,

others and organization. Not all followers will reveal the capacity to be effective at the three

levels. Some followers may be skilled in developing their competences but less competent in

applying them in their relationships with others and in contributing to the organization.

Some may be competent in relating with others but less competent in terms of their self-

actualization and their contribution to the organization. Others may be devoted members of

the organization but, in some way, reveal weaknesses at the level of self and others. In this

section, we discuss a number of followership competence scenarios and their impact in terms

of firm performance (the summary of the levels of follower competence can be found

in Table 1).

Followership at a single level

Followers with high self-competence and lower levels of competence with regard to others

and the organization may bring a limited organizational contribution. Ed Catmull (2008: 66),

co-founder of Pixar, observed that it is tough getting talented people to work effectively with

one another. Individually talented followers may be interested in creating value for them-

selves, expressing minimal concern for the rest of the organization and its members (including

their leaders), focusing on individual achievement and being overachievers.

Groups and organizations with individual talents who practice highly developed posses-

sive individualism and thus display only a limited capacity or willingness to care about co-

workers or the organization are limited in their achievements (Collins, 2001). Individual

competence, or being competent at the level of the self, may be a necessary, but not a

sufficient condition for collective success. Individualistic followers (Chaleff, 1995), those

who tell only what they think without obtaining the support of others, may actually end

up being marginalized. The benefits of competence at the level of the self may be neutralized

Cunha et al. 93


9/21

by lack of competence at the levels of others and the organization, especially when there is a

need to bring others to join the venture.

Overachievers, however, have a destructive potential, as they tend to care too little about

others. Spreier, Fontaine and Malloy (2006) studied the process of leaders running amok and

stressed the problems associated with this approach. The same individual orientation may

apply to followers: if task interdependence is low, competence at level of self may be positive,

as interactional demands are limited. If task interdependence is high, then this competence at

the level of self may lose value when it is not combined with competence at other levels, as

Table 1. Levels of follower competence.

Self Others Organization Explanation

Competence at

one level

Competence at the level of self

(

) High contributions when task interdepend-ence low

() Inferior contributions when task inter-

dependence high

Competence at the level of others

() High contributions when execution more

relevant than strategizing

() Inferior contributions when strategizing more

relevant than execution

Competence at the level of organization

() high level of short-term performance when

execution prevails under time constraints() low levels of long-term performance when

independence is necessary

Competence at

two levels

Competence at the level of self and others

() High contributions when mobilize resources

on behalf of the organization

() Inferior contributions when mobilize

resources against the organization

Competence at the level of self and

organization

() High short-term contributions when task

interdependence low() Inferior long-term contributions when task

interdependence high Competence at the level of others and

organization

() High contributions when expresses

dedication

() Inferior contributions when expresses

alienation

Competence at

three levels

Transcendent follower

() High contributions in the long run

() Inferior contributions when organizationfavours obedience

94 Leadership 9(1)


10/21

interpersonal and process conflict may neutralize individual competence (Jehn, 1997). From

this we suggest that:

Proposition 1.Followers with a high self-competence and low competences at other levels will be

associated with (a) high levels of performance when task interdependence is low and with (b) low

levels of performance when interdependence is high.

Some followers may develop a higher level of competence in the domain of others than at

the level of self and the organization. There are several reasons why a high competence at the

level of others may not be matched by equivalent competence at the levels of self and

organization. First, the need to belong may be so powerful (Leary and Baumeister, 2000),

and the desire to maintain good relationships with co-workers may be so pronounced

(Fernet et al., 2010), that a follower may put the team above personal and organizational

interests. In this case, the reasoning is that what is good for the team is good for the other

levels. Group level identification may be especially powerful in the case of self-leading teams

(Neck et al., 1996). Research shows that, in these teams, pressures to align may be very

difficult to counter (Barker, 1993). Being a good team worker is an important competence,

especially when it comes to smooth execution. However, when independence and initiative

are more valuable, this competence may lose value and harm the collective in the long run.

Good team workers may suppress independent thinking in order to protect the team from

conflict. If their mission is to execute, this may be beneficial. But if independence is more

relevant and task conflict is recommended, they may not be able to articulate their views in

an independent way, in order not to disturb the team, self-limiting their contribution in the

process. From this we extract our second proposition:

Proposition 2.Followers with a high competence at the level of others and low competences at

other levels will be associated with (a) high levels of performance when execution is more rele-vant than independence and with (b) low levels of performance when independence is more

important than execution.

In some cases, followers may display high competence in managing the organization

and be low in managing the self and others because the individual in question strives to

contribute to the organization but at a personal cost as well as underestimating the

level of others. The process is well established in several organizational literatures.

The charismatic relationship, for example, may elicit a dedication to the leader and

the organization that becomes unquestioning obedience (Shamir, 1991). When this

occurs, followers feel like they are being taken care of by the leaders [and] thus

become pawns in the hands of those who have climbed to higher echelons of those

organizations (Shamir, 1991: 85). While this may be productive in the short run,

because it creates organizations that vigorously respond to the leaders visioning, it

will deprive the organization of independent thinking and limit its capacity to grow

the development of its members. When charismatic leaders create a mass of dependent

followers, they are hardly creating sustainable organizations, as history has shown

repeatedly. This leads us to our third proposition:

Proposition 3. Followers with a high competence at the level of organization and low compe-

tences at other levels will be associated with (a) high levels of short-term performance when

execution prevails and with (b) low levels of long-term performance when independence is

necessary.

Cunha et al. 95


11/21

Followership at two levels

Employee initiative and influence can, in some cases, reveal high levels of competence in

managing self and others but a low level of competence in terms of managing the organiza-

tion. The literature offers a number of cases that substantiate this possibility. For example,according to LMX theory, leaders may develop differential relationships with members of

their in-group and out-group (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). When members of the out-group

perceive themselves in this situation, one or more may assume the initiative to unite the out-

group in order to confront the leader and its in-group. The ability of any subgroup members

to devise a personal strategy and to aggregate the rest of the out-group with his/her vision

may result in a cohesive subgroup that will counter what they see as the leaders discrimin-

ation. In this case, the competence of the informal emergent leader with respect to self and

others will not necessarily lead to higher organizational performance. When this energy is

directed to a pro-organizational cause, it can be a force for change, for example to start a

valuable initiative or to counter an abusive boss (Hobman et al., 2009). However, it may

actually decrease performance given the out-groups opposition to the leaders orientation

and directives. From this we derive our next proposition:

Proposition 4. Followers with high competence in managing self and others, but low in the

competence of managing the organization will be associated with (a) high levels of performance

when they mobilize resources on behalf of the organization and (b) low levels of performance

when they mobilize resources against the organization.

Some people have high competence in managing self and organization but are low in

terms of managing others, which may be beneficial for the organization in the short run but

less positive in the long run. Professional experts competent in their own domain may bring

good results that favour the organization in the short run but damage social capital as time

passes. Casciaro and Lobos (2005) figure of the competent jerk illustrates this possibility.

In this case the personal contribution may be positive in terms of individual performance but

their lack of consideration for others may impede the development of social ties and the

growth of social capital. When it happens, short-term benefits will not necessarily contribute

to the sustainability of results in the long term.

A conscientious, prudent and self-disciplined employee (self) may adopt several organ-

izational citizenship behaviours (e.g. making constructive suggestions, or communicating a

good image of the organization outside) that benefit the company. However, if (s)he has not

developed relational competences for cultivating good relationships with colleagues and

leaders, (s)he can damage the teams emotional climate, cooperation and performance.

Some followers are good performers and loyal employees but they lack the social compe-

tency to relate positively with others. From this we propose:

Proposition 5. Followers with a high self and organizational competence but low in terms of

managing others will be associated with (a) high short-term performance when task interdepend-

ence is low and (b) low long-term performance, as well as short-term performance, when task

interdependence is high.

People who commit themselves to the organizations mission will potentially contribute

positively to it. Employees dedicated both to others and to the organization are often

described as good team workers and devoted organizational members. Being less competent

at the level of self is not necessarily an obstacle to being a good employee and to making a

96 Leadership 9(1)


12/21

positive contribution to the organization. Where the organizations leaders and managers

seek to develop a good ethical organization, dedication to others and the organization may

be positive. Follower dedication may result from personal characteristics, such as a high

degree of self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974), relational or collective identity orientation (Howell

and Shamir, 2005), and low self-concept clarity (Howell and Shamir, 2005). These individualdispositions influence the followers willingness to act according to situational requirements,

such as those imposed by the leader or from team and/or organizational pressures to con-

formity, as well as particular preferences for more personal (i.e. based on direct relationship

with the leader) or socialized (i.e. based on the status of the leader as a representative of the

organization) relations with the leader (Howell and Shamir, 2005). Nonetheless, if this dedi-

cation represents a progressive lack of consideration for ones values, goals or needs, then it

can lead to feelings of alienation that are more associated with passivity and burnout

(Maslach et al., 2001) than with work engagement. From this we derive the following

proposition:

Proposition 6.A follower with a high competence in managing others and organization but whois low in terms of managing self may be associated with (a) high performance when expressing

dedication and with (b) low performance when expressing alienation.

Between-level conflicts

The uncritical focus of much leadership literature on organizations in terms of the explicit

interests that top management defines may lead to the conclusion that the critical level for

follower contribution is their focus on the organizational level. When followers excel in

organizational level responsibilities, firm performance is expected to be positive. However,

as we mentioned, in the long run, followers focusing on the organizational level may con-

tribute to negative outcomes, especially when the motives and strategies proposed by leaders

and the organizational context are problematic. Moreover, competence at the level of the self

can be extremely important in cases in which tension or conflict exists between levels.

Without courage and integrity (self), they may contribute to support poor decisions and

damage the organization. Responsible followers may legitimately contest goals established

by the hierarchy if these goals counter values or risk harm the organizations reputation.

They are also better able to think independently and adopt a critical attitude (Kelley, 1992)

in opposing those decisions that incubate in high cohesiveness contexts that favour group-

think, even when relationships with peers and colleagues are at stake. The idea that good

employees are those who try to reach their goals, may not hold when goal setting triggers

dysfunctional processes with the conformity of the employee (Ordon ez et al., 2009), such as,

for example, unethical courses of action stimulated by pressure to attain the goal. Good

employees may be those who confront goals that contain a potential for self and organiza-

tional destruction.

Self-reference and a clear sense of personal identity characterize capable people in fol-

lowership positions (Crossan et al., 2008). The personal anchors and moral compasses of

every organizational member may contribute more to the creation of healthy organizations

than the exercise of obedience to authority and a mere focus on execution. Some degree of

obedience to authority is necessary for organizations to function but, as demonstrated by

classic psychology studies, obedience to authority may become extreme (Milgram, 1974) and

harm the organization and its members as well as the wider society (Kellerman, 2004).

Cunha et al. 97


13/21

Considering the above, we predict that healthy, vibrant organizations will be spaces in

which people have the freedom to vent disagreements and contribute to the organizations

learning in an open, honest way, rather than spaces in which people suppress their opinions

and doubts in the name of harmony and cohesion. Better organizations are characterized by

polyphony (Kornberger et al., 2006). Neutralizing voice may be positive episodically forthose doing the silencing but it can be potentially negative for them in the long term as they

fail to learn. Both leadership (Weick, 2001) and followership may thus be viewed as the

legitimation of doubt. Research on organizational learning suggests that psychological

safety encourages learning through honest discussions (Edmondson, 1999). Obedience is a

particularly dangerous ingredient when it occurs in the context of an extreme leader and a

situation without the proper combination of checks and balances (Howell and Shamir,

2005). Considering the above, we suggest:

Proposition 7.When facing conflicts between levels, followers with a high level of self-managing

competence will be associated with higher long-term organizational performance than will

followers with low levels of that competence.

Followership at the three levels

Transcendent followers who display high competence at all levels will contribute to the

enhancement of firm sustainability in dynamic environments. The notion of transcendent

followers, those that express high levels of competence in managing self, others and organ-

ization, will be associated with the highest level of firm performance, for the same reasons

that led Ghoshal and Bruch (2003) to consider purposeful action taken by individuals the

key to corporate rejuvenation. Organizational members might be personally convinced that

their activities served certain higher needs, contributed to something bigger and were import-

ant for the organization (Ghoshal and Bruch, 2003: 188) regardless of their position in the

hierarchy. These people, in other words, express a strong conviction that they are doing a job

that deserves to be done and display emotional attachment and strong personal responsi-

bility for their work. The sense of competence in terms of self, others, and organization, may

therefore be a pre-condition for someone to feel and act as a genuine adult and independent

organizational citizen. Organizational citizens feel responsible for the organization, go

beyond task requirements and express conscientious initiative (Borman, 2004) in a consistent

way. Hence, in our final proposition, we suggest that:

Proposition 8.Transcendent followers with high levels of competence in terms of managing self,others and organization will be associated with higher levels of firm performance in the long run

than followers with any other combination of competencies.

Conclusions and implications

The meaning of processes such as leadership and followership is changing: the language of

authority and obedience, of supervisor and subordinate, is giving way to one of leadership/

followership, with leaders and followers being seen as partners or allies (Bennis, 1999;

Cunha et al., 2011) in search of high-quality relationships (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). As

summarized by Frese and Fay (2001: 135), many managers argue nowadays that they need

active participants at work rather than passive implementers of orders from above.

98 Leadership 9(1)


14/21

Organizations stand or fall partly not only on the basis of how their leaders lead but also

partly on the basis of how well their followers follow (Kelley, 1988). Effective followers, in

this perspective, manage themselves well, are committed to the organization and to a pur-

pose, principle, or person outside themselves, build their competence and denote courage,

honesty and credibility through their actions. Sustainable organizations demand transcend-ent leaders and transcendent followers.

We have discussed the significant roles that followers may play in the renewal and adap-

tation of organizations to dynamic environments. We extended Crossan, Vera and Nanjads

(2008) analysis of transcendent leaders to people in non-leadership positions. Our discussion

suggested that followers roles go well beyond execution without interpretation. If we con-

sider organizations as interpretive systems (Daft and Weick, 1984), then every organizational

member may potentially contribute to the interpretation of changes in the environment and

to the adaptation of the organization to these changes.

In spite of our argument in favour of a more careful consideration of the role of followers,

we do not claim that there is symmetry of influence in terms of the official and sanctioned

interpretations and the resulting influences. In the same way, we do not argue that the role of

followers is identically influential in every organization. Further research will be needed to

clarify which factors, organizational and environmental, have an impact on the degree of

agency of followers and act as boundary conditions for the propositions suggested above.

We expect that factors both internal and external to the organization influence the willing-

ness and scope of follower participation.

Among environmental factors, we suggest that the level of competitive intensity (DAveni,

1995), the pace of environmental change (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997), and the level of

uncertainty (Waldman et al., 2001) may all play key roles. The higher the level of competitive

intensity, the faster the pace of environmental change and the greater environmental uncer-

tainty, the more organizations may need the sophistication and personal initiative of their

members in followership positions. In contrast and as contingency theory has long implied,

organizations facing stable environments and competing on the basis of static efficiency may

reach their goals via narrowness and repetition (Farjoun, 2010), by asking followers to

follow. Among organizational factors, we consider that organizational design (Davis

et al., 2009), the nature of bureaucracy (Adler and Borys, 1996), and the sense of collective

ownership (Pearce and Jussila, 2010) may influence the way followers interpret their roles

and the extent to which they can be proactive. Focusing on design, we anticipate that

enabling bureaucracies provide the space that constraining ones do not and that a sense

of collective ownership provides the stimulus for people to be active rather than passive.

Our study contributes to the management literature by exploring the role of followers, a

topic still understudied and deserving of further attention. First, leadership is a relational

process and, in this sense, studying it only by considering the leaders side constitutes a

biased and incomplete view. Researchers should consider the several participants in the

leadership process rather than only the formal leader. Second, emerging forms of organiza-

tion necessarily lead to a reconsideration of the nature of leadership and followership.

Community forms of organization (OMahony and Ferraro, 2007), heterarchies (Beunza

and Stark, 2003), as well as organizations structured around the principle of responsible

autonomy (Fairtlough, 2005), are examples of designs that depart from the traditional view

and re-equate the roles and responsibilities of followers.

In all these organizational forms, systems of checks and balances make sure that the

powers of leaders are limited and that followers are not expected only to obey.

Cunha et al. 99


15/21

These emerging organizational forms expose ways in which the traditional roles of leaders

and followers may be challenged and new roles may emerge in the future. Such a change may

be relevant for organizational researchers because, as Scott (2004: 12) points out, hierarchies

may be increasingly giving way to more decentralized and horizontal systems, particularly

among organizations in the newer industries. In this changing landscape, the careful recon-sideration of the role of followers may thus be crucial for understanding leadership. New

organizational forms tend to be supportive of Warren Bennis (1999) claim that exemplary

leadership is not possible without full cooperation of followers.

With regard to managerial implications, our study reveals a number of possibilities. First,

it suggests that the role of progressive managers will in part consist of supporting transcend-

ent followers, that is organizational members with competence at the levels of self, others

and the organization. From this perspective, transcendent leaders are those who create

conditions for their employees fully to achieve their potential as transcendent followers

and to inform their leadership in the process. Second, it suggests that follower development

is a field as relevant as that of leadership development. There is an industry devoted to the

development of great leaders but not to the development of great followers: an analogy

would be for academies of music to focus only on conductors with little regard for the

qualities of the orchestra. Devising a strategic role for followers can be a force for trans-

formation in organizations. Third, by analysing the leadership process from the perspective

of the follower, our discussion indicates that resistance to change may be the process through

which leaders resist the agency of followers. There is no reason to assume that leaders resist

this agency less than followers do, other than because of the naturalization of academic

views on the resistance to change that see it as a phenomenon that exclusively affects fol-

lowers (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). When one looks at the leadership process from the

followers side, one may get a different picture. Finally, followers engagement with leader-

ship actions is not necessarily positive for organizations. Initiative and influence can in fact

be used to achieve goals that are not sanctioned by the organization and counter those that

are. In this regard, there is no difference between leadership exerted by leaders and influence

exerted by followers: each can produce either good or bad results.

Further research on transcendent followership is needed to test the propositions advanced

here. For example, the conditions that facilitate the emergence of transcendent followers as

well as those that discourage people from acting as such, require investigation. Conditions

such as time pressure and job control (Fay and Sonnentag, 2010), justice perceptions

(Colquitt et al., 2001), and identification with the organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1989)

may provide a useful insight into why people act as transcendent followers. Another possi-

bility is to study the cross-cultural dimensions of transcendent followership. Several authors

(e.g. Avolio et al., 2009; Kellerman, 2008) note that there are different templates for being a

good follower. Different configurational contexts, differing in political or cultural constitu-

tion, may elicit different responses from followers (for an illustration, see the case of East

and West Germany in Frese et al., 1996) and cross-cultural studies of followership may

complement the voluminous research on cross-cultural dimensions of leadership (e.g.

House et al., 1999).

The concept of followership may be construed differently in more advanced and newly

forming industries versus more established ones with long histories of treating leaders and

followers in a particular way (Avolio et al., 2009). The study of transcendent followers will

also require the analysis of how these organizational members transcend the boundaries

between work and non-work, namely how they link their professional and family lives.

100 Leadership 9(1)


16/21

Future studies should also explore how the levels of self, other and organization interact with

the societal level. Both leaders and followers contribute to social betterment, especially

where they share efforts in pursuing such endeavours. One important question is how and

in which conditions, transcendent followers are able to manage the levels of self, others and

organization when higher purposes at the societal level are at stake and may collide with self,others, and/or organization interests. We have contributed, in summary, to a nuanced,

multi-level, understanding of follower competence, which, in our view, is far more than

merely a reflection of leader competence.

Acknowledgements

Miguel Cunha acknowledges support from Nova Forum. We thank Mary Crossan, Nadim Habib and

John Huffstot for the comments and suggestions. Our sincere thanks for the comments received from

the journals reviewing team.

References

Adler PS and Borys B (1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science

Quarterly 41: 6189.

Ashforth BE and Mael F (1989) Social identity and the organization. Academy of Management Review

14: 2039.

Ashforth SJ and Black JS (1996) Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control.

Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 199214.

Ashforth SJ and Tsui AS (1991) Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feed-

back seeking. Academy of Management Journal34: 251280.

Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO and Weber TJ (2009) Leadership: Current theories, research, and future

directions.Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421449.Baker SD (2007) Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of

Leadership and Organizational studies 14: 5060.

Barker JR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly 38: 400437.

Bennis W (1999) The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership is not possible without full inclusion,

initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational Dynamics 28: 7179.

Beunza D and Stark D (2003) The organization of responsiveness: Innovation and recovery in the

trading rooms of Lower Manhattan. Socio-Economic Review 1: 135164.

Borman WC (2004) The concept of organizational citizenship. Current Directions in Psychological

Science 13: 238241.

Bromiley P and Cummings LL (1996) Transaction costs in organizations with trust. Research onNegotiation in Organizations 5: 219247.

Brown SL and Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and

time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:

134.

Burns JM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Campbell DJ (2000) The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. Academy of Management

Executive14: 5266.

Carney BM and Getz I (2009) Freedom Inc. New York: Crown.

Carsten MK, Uhl-Bien M, West BJ, Patera JL and McGregor R (2010) Exploring constructions of

followership: A qualitative study. Leadership Quarterly 21: 543562.

Casciaro T and Lobo MS (2005) Competent jerks, lovable fools, and the formation of social networks.Harvard Business Review, June: 9299.

Cunha et al. 101


17/21

Catmull E (2008) How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review, September: 6472.

Caza BB and Milton LP (2011) Resilience at work: Building capability in the face of adversity.

In: Cameron KS and Spreitzer G (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational

Scholarship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chaleff I (1995) The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and For Our Leaders . San Francisco, CA:

Jossey Bass.Chia R (2003) From knowledge-creation to the perfecting of action: Tao, Basho and pure experience as

the ultimate ground of knowing. Human Relations 56: 953981.

Clegg SR and Haugaard M (2009) The Sage Handbook of Power. London: Sage.

Collins J (2001) Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business

Review January: 6776.

Collinson D (2006) Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities.

Leadership Quarterly 17: 179189.

Colquitt JA, Conlon DE, Wesson MJ, Porter OLH and Ng KY (2001) Justice at the millennium: A

meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology

86: 425445.

Costa AC (2003) Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review 32: 605622.Crossan M, Vera D and Nanjad L (2008) Transcendent leadership: Strategic leadership in dynamic

environments. Leadership Quarterly 19: 569581.

Cunha MP, Cunha RC and Rego A (2009) Exploring the role of leader-subordinate interactions in the

construction of organizational positivity. Leadership 5: 81101.

Cunha MP, Rego A and Clegg S (2011) Beyond addiction: Hierarchy and other ways of getting

strategy done. European Management Journal29: 491503.

Cunha MP, Rego A and Kamoche K (2009) Improvisation in service recovery. Managing Service

Quality 19: 657669.

Daft RL and Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of

Management Review 9: 284295.

Dansereau F, Graen GB and Haga W (1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership in formalorganizations.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 13: 4678.

Dasgupta P (1988) Trust as a commodity. In: Gambetta D (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking

Cooperative Relations. New York: Basil Blackwell, pp.4972.

DAveni RA (1995) Coping with hypercompetition: Utilizing the new 7-Ss framework. Academy of

Management Executive 9(3): 4557.

Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM and Bingham CB (2009) Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the

strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly 54: 413452.

Day GS and Schoemaker P (2004) Peripheral vision: Sensing and acting on weak signals. Long Range

Planning 37: 117121.

Day GS and Schoemaker P (2008) Are you a vigilant leader? MIT Sloan Management ReviewSpring:

4351.Denis JL, Lamothe L and Langley A (2001) The dynamics of collective leadership and strategic change

in pluralistic organizations. Academy of Management Journal44: 809837.

Denis JL, Langley A and Rouleau L (2010) The practice of leadership in the messy world of organ-

izations.Leadership 6: 6788.

Dent EB and Goldberg SG (1999) Challenging resistance to change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science 35: 2541.

Druskat VU and Wolff SB (2001) Building emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review,

March: 8190.

Edmondson AC (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative

Science Quarterly 44: 350383.

Fairtlough G (2005)The Three Ways of Getting Things Done: Hierarchy, Heterarchy and ResponsibleAutonomy. Greenways, UK: Triarchy Press.

102 Leadership 9(1)


18/21

Farjoun M (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality.Academy of Management Review

35: 202225.

Farmer SM, Maslyn JM, Fedor DB and Goodman JS (1997) Putting upward influence strategies in

context.Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(1): 1742.

Fay D and Sonnentag S (2010) A look back to move ahead: New directions for research on proactive

performance and other discretionary behaviors. Applied Psychology: An International Review 59:120.

Fernet C, Gagne G and Austin S (2010) When does quality of relationships with coworkers predict

burnout over time? The moderating role of work motivation.Journal of Organizational Behavior 31:

11631180.

Fiedler FE (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Frese M and Fay D (2001) Personal initiative: An active performance concept for the 21st century.

Research in Organizational Behavior 23: 133187.

Frese M, Kring W, Soose A and Zempel J (1996) Personal initiative at work: Differences between East

and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal39: 3763.

Fry A (1987) The post-it note: A case of intrapreneurial success. SAM Advanced Management Journal

Summer: 49.Ghoshal S and Bruch H (2003) The invisible underpinnings of corporate rejuvenation:

Purposeful action taking by individuals. In: Birkinshaw J, Ghoshal S, Markides C, Stopford J

and Yip G (eds) The Future of the Multinational Company. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons,

pp.179193.

Goleman D (1998) Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman D and Boyatzis R (2008) Social intelligence and the biology of leadership. Harvard Business

Review September: 7481.

Graen GB and Uhl-Bien M (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-

member-exchange (LMX) theory over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective.

Leadership Quarterly 6: 219247.

Grant A and Mayer D (2009) Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression managementmotives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology

94(4): 900912.

Gratton L (2004) The Democratic Enterprise. London: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Gratton L and Ghoshal S (2003) Managing personal human capital. New ethos for the volunteer

employee. European Management Journal21(1): 110.

Grewal D and Salovey P (2005) Feeling smart: The science of emotional intelligence. American

Scientist July-August: 330339.

Gwynne P (1997) Skunkworks, 1990s-style. Research-Technology Management 40(4): 1823.

Hamel G (2006) The why, what, and how of management innovation. Harvard Business Review

February: 7284.

Hamel G (2007) The Future of Management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Harvard Business Review(2012) Great American leaders of the twentieth century. Available at: http://

www.hbs.edu/leadership/database (accessed 1 February 2012).

Hobman EV, Restubog SL, Bordia P and Tang RL (2009) Abusive supervision in advising relation-

ships: Investigating the role of social support. Applied Psychology: An International Review 58:

233256.

Houghton JD, Neck CP and Manz CC (2003) Self-leadership and super-leadership: The heart and art

of creating shared leadership in teams. In: Pearce CL and Conger JA (eds) Shared leadership:

Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.123140.

House RJ, Hanges PJ, Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, Dorfman PW, Javidan M, Dickson M, Gupta V, et al.

(1999) Cultural influences on leadership and organizations: Project GLOBE. In: Mobley WH,

Gessner MJ and Arnold V (eds) Advances in Global Leadership, vol. 1. Stamford, CT: JAI Press,pp.171233.

Cunha et al. 103


19/21

Howell JM and Shamir B (2005) The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process. Academy

of Management Review 30: 96112.

Imai M (1986) Kaizen: The Key to Japans Competitive Success. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups.

Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 530557.

Kellerman B (2004) Bad Leadership. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Kellerman B (2008) Followership: How Followers are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston

MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kelley RE (1988) In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, November-December: 142148.

Kelley RE (1992) The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want to Follow and

Followers who Lead Themselves. New York: Doubleday.

Kernbach S and Schutte NS (2005) The impact of service provider emotional intelligence on customer

satisfaction.Journal of Services Marketing 19(7): 438444.

Kets de Vries MFR (2011)The Hedgehog Effect: The Secrets of Building High Performance Teams. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Kornberger M, Carter C and Clegg SR (2006) Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as

discursive practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management 22: 330.Kramer RM (1999) Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions.

Annual Review of Psychology 50: 569598.

Kupers W and Weibler J (2008) Inter-leadership: Why and how should we think of leadership and

followership integrally? Leadership 4: 443475.

Leary RM and Baumeister RF (2000) The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 56: 485516.

Li N, Liang J and Crant J (2010) The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organiza-

tional citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(2): 395404.

Lichtenstein B and Plowman DA (2009) The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership

theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. Leadership Quarterly 20: 617630.

Lilius JM, Worline MC, Maitlis S, Kanov J, Dutton JE and Frost P (2008) The contours and conse-quences of compassion at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 29: 193218.

Lord RG, Brown DJ and Freiberg SJ (1999) Understanding the dynamics of leadership: The role of

follower self-concepts in the leader/follower relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes 78: 167203.

Lord RG, Diefendorff JM, Schmidt AM and Hall RJ (2010) Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of

Psychology 61: 543568.

Macpherson CB (1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: From Hobbes to Locke.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Makela L (2009) Representations of change within dyadic relationships between leader and follower:

Discourses of pregnant followers. Leadership 5: 171191.

Manz CC and Sims HP (1980) Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning theoryperspective.Academy of Management Review 5: 361367.

Maslach C, Schaufeli WB and Leiter MP (2001) Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52:

397422.

McCullough ME, Emmons RA and Tsang J (2002) The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empir-

ical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 112127.

Meindl JR, Ehrlich SB and Dukerich JM (1985) The romance of leadership. Administrative Science

Quarterly 30: 78102.

Meyerson D and Scully M (1995) Tempered radicalism and the politics of ambivalence and change.

Organization Science 6: 585600.

Milgram S (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row.

Mirvis P (1994) Environmentalism in progressive businesses. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 7: 82100.

104 Leadership 9(1)


20/21

Morrison EW and Phelps CC (1999) Taking charge at work: Extrarole effort to initiate workplace

change.Academy of Management Journal42: 403419.

Mowday RT (1978) The exercise of upward influence in organizations. Administrative Science

Quarterly 23(1): 137156.

Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage.

Academy of Management Review 23: 242266.Neck CP, Stewart GL and Manz CC (1996) Self-leadership within self-leading teams: Toward an

optimal equilibrium. Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams 3: 4366.

Northouse PG (2004) Leadership Theory and Practice. London: Sage.

Nye J (2008) The Powers to Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.

OMahony S and Ferraro F (2007) The emergence of governance in an open source community.

Academy of Management Journal 50: 10791106.

Ordon ez LD, Schweitzer ME, Galinsky AD and Bazerman M (2009) Goals gone wild: The

systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives 23:

616.

Organ DW (1997) Organizational citizenship behaviour: Its construct clean-up time. Human

Performance 10: 8597.Pearce JL and Jussila I (2010) Collective psychological ownership within the work and organiza-

tional context. Construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31:

810834.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Paine JB and Bachrach JG (2000) Organizational citizenship behav-

iors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research.

Journal of Management 26: 513563.

Rost JC (1995) Leadership: A discussion about ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 5: 129142.

Rousseau DM (2005) I-deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Individuals Bargain for Themselves. New York: M.E.

Sharpe.

Scott WR (2004) Reflections on a half century of organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology

30: 121.Senge PM, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R and Smith BJ (1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. London:

Nicholas Brealey.

Shamir B (1991) The charismatic relationship: Alternative explanations and predictions. Leadership

Quarterly 2: 81104.

Shamir B (2007) From passive recipients to active co-producers. Followers roles in the leadership

process. In: Shamir B, Pillai R, Bligh MC and Uhl-Bien M (eds) Follower-Centered Perspectives on

Leadership. Greenwich, CT: Information Age, pp.ixxxxix.

Snyder M (1974) Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

30: 526537.

Spreier SW, Fontaine MH and Malloy RL (2006) Leadership run amok: The destructive potential of

overachievers.Harvard Business Review June: 7282.Vlachoutsicos C.A. (2011) How to cultivate engaged employees. Harvard Business Review, September:

123126.

Waldman DA, Ramirez GG, House RJ and Puranam P (2001) Does leadership matter? CEO leader-

ship attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. Academy

of Management Journal44: 134143.

Weick KE (2001) Leadership as the legitimation of doubt. In: Bennis W, Spreitzer GM and Cummings

TG (eds) The Future of Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, pp.91102.

Weng H (2008) Does the physicians emotional intelligence matter? Impacts of the physicians emo-

tional intelligence on the trust, patient-physician relationship, and satisfaction. Health Care

Management Review 33: 280288.

Wolff SB, Pescosolido AT and Druskat VU (2002) Emotional intelligence as the basis of leadershipemergence in self-managing teams. Leadership Quarterly 13: 505522.

Cunha et al. 105


21/21

Yukl G and Van Fleet DD (1992) Theory and research on leadership in organizations. In: Dunnette

MD and Hough LM (eds) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edn. Palo

Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp.147197.

Zaccaro SJ, Gilbert JA, Thor KK and Mumford MD (1991) Leadership and social intelligence:

Linking social perspectiveness and behavioral flexibility to leader effectiveness. Leadership

Quarterly 2: 317342.

Author biographies

Miguel Pina e Cunha is Professor at Nova School of Business and Economics. His research

deals with positive and negative organizing, and emergent processes in organizations, such as

improvisation, surprise and serendipity.

Arme nio Rego is Assistant Professor at the Universidade de Aveiro. He has a PhD from

ISCTE and has published in journals such as Applied Psychology: An International Review,

Journal of Business Ethics,Journal of Business Research, andJournal of Occupational Health

Psychology. His research deals with positive organizational behavior.

Stewart Clegg is Research Professor at the University of Technology, Sydney, and Director

of the Centre for Management and Organization Studies Research, and a Visiting Professor

at Nova School of Business and Economics. His research is driven by a fascination with

power and theorizing.

Pedro Nevesis Assistant Professor at Nova School of Business and Economics. His research

deals with trust and organizational change processes.

106 Leadership 9(1)

Documents

The Case for Transcendent Followership