Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LEADERSHIP STUDIES
A Case of Leader–Follower Trade Approach
PETROS G. MALAKYAN
The current article acknowledges the absence of followership from the leadership literature for many
years. Major theories of leadership are reviewed to assert that (1) modern leadership studies have
been developed strictly from the leader’s perspective with little or no attention on followership,
(2) leadership studies have primarily been based on the static understanding of leadership (leaders
always remain leaders),1 and (3) there seems to be a need for a new paradigm for leader–follower
relationships, which may result in organic relationships between leaders and followers through
exchange of leadership and followership functions and roles. Thus, it is argued that the mutuality
of relationships and influence between the follower and the leader exists. To address the need for a
new paradigm for leadership, the leader–follower trade (LFT) approach is introduced, which may result
in the nonstatic and organic approach to leadership–followership as two valuable human behavioral
functions. In this case, leadership and followership functions and roles may be traded or exchanged
by the positional leaders and followers in different situations or organizational settings toward mutual
respect, empowerment, and effectiveness.
Followership has never been a part of educational leadership effectiveness than followership. Even the
curricula in the West until the turn of this century. general public seems to continue advocating for leader-
Leadership conversely seems almost a monopolized dis- ship and neglecting followership, although nearly 80%
cipline that teaches how to influence people and make of people function as followers who have been growing
the leader successful in order to reach personal and stronger whereas leaders have weakened in the last 2
organizational goals through success, effectiveness, decades (Kelley, 1992). According to Kelley (1992),
and productivity. The emphasis in these programs is such “single-minded conformism” in our modern soci-
on how to be a leader and/or a manager rather than ety has caused a serious deficiency and problem in lead-
a follower (International Leadership Association, ership studies, in both theory and practice. Society as
2013).2 There seems to be more concern nowadays for a whole has been affected by the “cult of leadership”
Avoidance Engagement
avoid the LFT approach. Thus it may be infeasible.
Response-change: When the leader and the fol-
2 3
Apprehensive Inquisitive lower are incompetent and unwilling for a func-
tional exchange, a teaching and encouraging
Low
Avoidance Avoidance
development style may be used for the implemen-
Low Willingness High tation of the LFT approach.
3. Inquisitive Avoidance = Low competency, High
regardless of one’s gender, ethnic, cultural, or social willingness. Leaders and followers may express
identity. Moreover, leaders and followers may trade interest but avoid the LFT approach. Thus it may
their functions from leader to follower and from fol- be feasible.
lower to leader if they are willing and capable in order
Response-change: When the leader or the follower is
to foster interpersonal relationships, develop their
incompetent but willing for a functional exchange, a
intrapersonal perspectives, and maximize mutual effec-
teaching and participatory development style may be
tiveness across cultural, ethnic, and gender diversities.
used for the implementation of the LFT approach.
Thus, the study on followership in relation to leader-
ship is not an option but a necessity. 4. Enthusiastic Engagement = High competency,
High willingness. Leaders and followers may be
Feasibility of the LFT Approach enthusiastic and engaged in the LFT approach.
Thus it is feasible.
Two major limitations of the LFT approach seem
evident in the areas of willingness and competencies. Response-change: When the leader or the follower is
First, some leaders or followers may not be willing to competent and willing for a functional exchange, an
exchange their roles and functions due to their personal empowering and delegating development style may
preferences. Second, the leaders and followers may feel be used for the implementation of the LFT approach.
incompetent for the role and functional exchange. For Summary:
instance, it would seem unrealistic or perhaps naïve to (1) When the leader–follower willingness is high, it is
assume that an inexperienced leader, who lacks knowl- more likely that the LFT approach will be feasible.
edge, skills, and expertise, may increase his or her effec- Conversely, when the leader–follower willingness is
tiveness by implementing the LFT approach. Moreover, low, it is more likely that the LFT approach will be
in order for true dialogue and mutual learning to take infeasible.
place between leaders and followers, the same benefits (2) When the leader–follower competency is high, it is
and privileges, such as decision-making power, com- more likely that the LFT approach will be feasible.
pensation, and status, must apply to both parties. There Conversely, when the leader–follower competency
seem to be four possible variations of feasibility of the is low, it is more likely that the LFT approach will
LFT approach. The quadrants in Figure 1 provide fea- be infeasible.
sibility stages for the applicability and implementation
of the LFT approach. Conclusion and Recommendation
1. Resistant Avoidance = High competency, Low will- Leadership and followership as behavioral functions
ingness. Leaders and followers may resist but not ought to be treated mutually and studied simultane-
avoid the LFT approach. Thus it may be infeasible. ously. The theoretical foundation of followership should
Response-change: When the leader and the fol- be studied along with the foundations of leadership in
lower are competent but unwilling for a functional order to understand how the relationships between the
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering
A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership Management Journal, 15(1).
and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, Doob, L. W. (1988). Inevitability: Determinism, fatalism, and des-
7, 304–319. tiny. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1985). The managerial grid III. Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership:
Houston, TX: Gulf. Does gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 459–474.
Blanchard, K. & Hodges, P. (2003). The Servant Leader. Nashville, Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the
TN: Thomas Nelson. path-goal relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. mance, 5, 277–298.
London, UK: Sage.
Fiedler, F. E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effective-
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: ness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-
Charles Scribner’s Sons. ogy (Vol. 1, pp. 149–190). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Fisher, B. A. (1985). Leadership as medium: Treating complexity in Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
group communication research. Small Group Research, 16, 167–196. mind, Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In
D. Cartwright (Ed)., Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Insti- Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
tute for Social Research. behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Freud, S. (1938). The basic writings of Sigmund Freud (A. A. Brill,
Ed.). New York, NY: Modern Library. Hollander, E. P. (1992). The essential interdependence of leader-
ship and followership. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
Friedman, M. S. (2002). Martin Buber: The life of dialogue (4th ed.). 1, 71–75.
London, UK: Routledge.
Hollander, E. P. (1995). Ethical challenges in the leader-follower
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & relationships. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(1), 55–65.
Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based
Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader–
model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership
follower relationship. New York, NY: Routledge.
Quarterly, 16, 343–372.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Authen- Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 321–328.
tic leadership theory and practice: Origins, effects and development.
Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In
J. G. Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge.
George, B. (2004). Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Creating Lasting Value (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass. House, R. J., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of lead-
ership: Some post hoc and a priori tests. In J. Hunt & L. Larson
George, B., & Sims, P. (2007). True north: Discovering your authen- (Eds.), Contingency approaches in leadership (pp. 29–55). Carbon-
tic leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. dale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be led by you? House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta,
What it takes to be an authentic leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi- V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study
ness School Press. of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Graen G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach International Leadership Association (2013). Resources: Directory
to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) of leadership education programs. http://www.ila-net.org/Resources
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi- /LPD/index2.asp
domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219–247.
Jung, C. J. (1961). Memories, dreams, and reflections. New York,
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist NY: Vintage.
Press. Katz, R. L. (1974). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard
Greenleaf, R. K., Spears, L. C., & Covey, S. R. (2002). Servant Business Review, 52, 90–102.
leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Kellerman, B. (2007). What every leader needs to know about fol-
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press. lowers. Harvard Business Review, 85, 84–91.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating
performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. change and changing leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Hannum, K. (2007). Social identity: Knowing yourself, leading others.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Kellerman, B. (2012). The end of leadership. New York, NY: Harper-
Collins.
Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing
cultural differences: Global leadership strategies for the 21st century. Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review,
Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 66, 142–148.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Wielkiewicz, R. M., & Stelzner, S. P. ( 2005). An ecological per-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. spective on leadership theory, research, and practice. Review of
General Psychology, 9, 326–341.
Orwell, G. (1936). Shooting the elephant. From Shooting an ele-
phant and other essays. New York, NY: Harcourt. Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attri-
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the butes. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
how and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. The nature of leadership (pp. 101–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Price, T. (2006). Understanding ethical failures in leadership. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Zaleznik, A. (2009). Executive’s guide to understanding people: How
Freudian theory can turn good executives into better leaders. New
Price, T. (2008). Leadership ethics: An introduction. Cambridge,
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rest, J. (1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory.
New York, NY: Praeger. Petros G. Malakyan is Associate Professor & Chair of
Riggio, R. E., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The Leadership Studies at Indiana Wesleyan University. He
art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organi- received a PhD degree in Intercultural Studies with
zations (J-B Warren Bennis Series). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Leadership Concentration from the School of Intercultural
Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,
CT: Praeger. California, in 1998.