Content area
This study explores an integrated model of followership and leadership styles that functions optimally. Utilizing Kelley's (1992) model of followership and Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) situational leadership theory, Bjugstad et al. (2006) proposed a theoretical framework linking these constructs. However, empirical exploration remains limited in the literature. The analysis focused on variables, such as demographic factors, affective commitment, followership, and leadership. Affective commitment was measured as a reflection of follower productivity, given its known impact on job performance. All proposed hypotheses were rejected, indicating that exemplary and conformist followership styles are associated with higher productivity, independent of leadership styles. Active followership enhances affective commitment among followers. Post-hoc analyses revealed that followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) positively influence affective commitment, While their combination with leadership (relationship behavior) yields negative effects. These findings highlight the complex dynamics between followership and leadership in promoting affective commitment within organizations.
This study explores an integrated model of followership and leadership styles that functions optimally. Utilizing Kelley's (1992) model of followership and Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) situational leadership theory, Bjugstad et al. (2006) proposed a theoretical framework linking these constructs. However, empirical exploration remains limited in the literature. The analysis focused on variables, such as demographic factors, affective commitment, followership, and leadership. Affective commitment was measured as a reflection of follower productivity, given its known impact on job performance. All proposed hypotheses were rejected, indicating that exemplary and conformist followership styles are associated with higher productivity, independent of leadership styles. Active followership enhances affective commitment among followers. Post-hoc analyses revealed that followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) positively influence affective commitment, While their combination with leadership (relationship behavior) yields negative effects. These findings highlight the complex dynamics between followership and leadership in promoting affective commitment within organizations.
Followership refers to the idea that followers share organizational goals with leaders and act toward those goals to directly or indirectly influence the leader and the organization (Nishinobo & Furuta, 2013). In today's highly competitive business environment, effective followership behavior is essential for organization's success. Previous research has demonstrated that followership behavior positively affects organizational outcomes (Herdian et al., 2022; Matsuyama & Mori, 2022). However, the interaction between follower and leader style is rarely discussed and adds good depth to our understanding of them. Recent studies on followership have begun to shift this perspective, highlighting how followers can actively influence leaders, particularly in terms of their behavior (Oc & Bashshur, 2013).
In recent years, empirical research on followership has primarily used Kelley's (1992) followership measurement scale to examine independent and dependent variables associated with Kelley's followership model (Matsuyama and Mori, 2022). However, the relationship between followership and leadership style has not been clarified empirically. This unexplored area presents an opportunity for future research to investigate how alignment or mismatch between followership and leadership styles may impact role-based followership theory. It is believed that followers' characteristics and behaviors shape leaders' attitudes and behaviors (Yang & Zhang, 2023). Given the accepted notion that there is no leadership without followers (UhlBien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014), it is worthwhile to examine the interaction between leadership and followership behaviors.
This study aims to investigate an integrated model of followership and leadership styles that functions ly. Using (1992) followership model and Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) situational leadership theory, Bjugstad et al. (2006) proposed a combined framework for understanding these concepts. However, an empirical examination of this integrated model has yet to be conducted (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). Clarifying this model through empirical research could lead to significant practical advancements such as enhancing the efficiency of recruitment, assignment, and training within human resource management. Additionally, this study contributes to the literature on the role-based approach to followership and leadership processes. Since leadership is inherently a relational process (Uhl-Bien, 2006), we explored the impacts of this integrated model of followership and leadership styles.
Theory and Hypotheses
Kelley's Followership Theory
Kelley (1992) categorized follower types along two dimensions; Independent, critical thinking and Active. Followers who exhibit independent, critical thinking sider the of their actions, demonstrate a willingness to be creative and innovative, and may offer constructive criticism. Conversely, followers who are pendent and tend to comply with the directives of their leaders. The second dimension, active, is used to determine the level of ownership that the follower demonstrates (Bjugstad et al., 2006). Kelley employed these two dimensions to classify into five distinct follower types (Figure 1). Kelley emphasized the uniqueness of exemplary followers and advocated for individuals to strive for this classification. Bjugstad et al. (2006) used only the four-quadrant subset, excluding pragmatists, in their integrated model. The following characteristics represent four types of followership as Kelley (1992) described. We briefly describe the characteristics of Kelley's four types of followers.
Exemplary followers are distinguished from other types by their balanced approaches to both dimensions. These individuals exhibit independent and critical thinking, demonstrate innovation and creativity, remain receptive to constructive criticism, and are willing to evaluate their leadership critically. Alienated followers possess critical thinking skills; however, they exhibit a negative disposition toward fulfilling their roles and tend to deviate from their colleagues in terms of behavior and attitude. Conformist followers are the 'yes people' of the organizations. They were obligated to accept their leaders' orders. Passive followers rely entirely on their leaders' judgment and thinking and lack passion, initiative, and a sense of responsibility. They require constant direction.
Hersey and Blanchard's Situational Leadership Theory
Situational leadership theory is a popular theory based on task behavior, the relationship behavior of a leader, and a follower's maturity (Johansen,1990). The leader is directed to adopt one of four styles based on the degree of relationship- and task-oriented behavior required by the situation (Bjugstad et al., 2006). These four leadership styles include Telling, Selling, Participating, and Delegating (Figure 2). Here, we briefly describe the characteristics of Hersey and Blanchard's four situational leadership quadrants:
Telling is an appropriate leadership style when an vidual or has low ability, willingness, and needs. Other one-word descriptors of this leadership style include guiding, directing, and structuring Selling is a leadership style that differs from itself. The leader not only provides guidance but also provides the opportunity for dialogue and clarification to help the person buy in psychologically to what the leader wants. Participating is a leadership-style leader's major role in encouraging and communicating. Other descriptors of this leadership style include collaborating, facilitating, or committing. Each of these implies high relationships and low task behavior. Delegating is a leadership style that includes observation and monitoring. Some relationship behavior is still needed, but it tends to be less than average. It is still appropriate to monitor the pulse of what is going on, but it is important to allow them to take responsibility and implement it on their own (Hersey & Blanchard, 1988).
An Integrated Model of Followership and Leadership Styles
Bjugstad et al. propose a concept that integrates Kelley's followership style with Hersey and Blanchard's leadership style, aiming to enhance follower productivity in practical settings (Figure 3). Table 1 outlines the recommended behaviors for both leaders and followers in each quadrant of the integrated model of followership and leadership styles put forward by Bjugstad et al. (2006).
According to Bjugstad et al. (2006), a leader's participation style, which is a low task and high relationship behavior, seems to fit best with a follower's alienated style, which is low active and independent critical thinking behavior. Alienated followers are capable but need more consideration to create mutual respect and trust and eliminate some of their cynicism.
Hypothesis 1: When a leader has a participative style, the affective commitment of followers with an alienating style is statistically higher than that of followers of other styles.
A leader's selling style, which is a high task behavior and relationship behavior, seems to fit best with a follower's passive style, which is a low active and independent critical thinking behavior. The telling style is arguably a good match for passive followers, who need direction and guidance. With the support of leaders, passive followers can enhance their production and receive encouragement (Bjugstad et al. 2006).
Hypothesis 2: When a leader has a selling style, the affective commitment of followers with a passive style is statistically higher than that of followers of other styles.
A leader's delegating style, which is low task and relationship behavior, seems to fit best with a follower's exemplary style, highly active and independent, critical thinking behavior. Exemplary followers can be positioned in the delegating-style quadrant, where the leader turns over responsibility for decisions and implementation. Exemplary followers are up to the challenges of this category and should flourish for the benefit of the organization. By meshing the styles of leaders and followers, organizations can maximize their strengths and minimize the weaknesses of leader-follower relationships (Bjugstad et al., 2006).
Hypothesis 3: When a leader has a delegating style, the affective commitment of followers with an exemplary style is statistically higher than that of followers of other styles.
A leader's telling style, high task, and relationship behavior seem to fit best with a follower's conformist style of highly active and low independent, critical thinking behavior. Conformist followers with their attitudes can be placed in the telling style quadrant, which characterizes a leadership style that focuses on providing specific instructions and closely monitoring performance (Bjugstad et al., 2006).
Hypothesis 4: When a leader has a telling style, the affective commitment of followers with a conformist style is statistically higher than that of followers with other styles.
Methods
Participants
We surveyed 524 full-time employees of a Japanese trading company (Mage= 38.59, SD = 9.54, female; 31.3%) who completed the study, yielding a response rate of 69.22%. The survey was conducted from August 22 to 31, 2014. The web survey screen provided explanations of ethical considerations and guarantees of anonymity, and consent for participation in the survey was confirmed.
Measures
We measured all variables using a 5-point scale (from 0: never to 4: always). Respondents were requested to answer the questions honestly. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis to confirm that the dimensions of followership and leadership captured the concepts we wanted to measure. Second, exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the job satisfaction scales used in this study. Third, a one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparisons were conducted to test the hypotheses. Finally, a post -hoc analysis was conducted using hierarchical multiple regression analysis to determine which followership behaviors, leadership behaviors, and their interactions affected followers' productivity.
We measured followership using eight items adapted from Nishinobo and Furuta's (2013) measurement scale. This scale has 30 items however the research partner company requested a reduction in the number of items. We selected questions with high factor loadings from Nishinobo and Furuta's (2013) scale. Finally, the items of followership included four items of followership (active) and four items of followership (independent, critical thinking). For each dimension, Kelley's (1992) followership measurement scale was used for one out of four items, and three items were from Nishinobo and Furuta's (2013) measurement scale.
We measured leadership using eight items adapted from Takahara and Yamashita's (2004) scale. This scale was developed using four items for leadership (task behavior) and leadership (relationship behavior), using the LBDQ-XII. This scale achieved reliable results for a major pharmaceutical company in Japan. Therefore, we used the leadership scale in this study. Affective commitment was measured following Kitai (2014). Bjugstad et al. (2006) showed that a combination of followership and leadership styles can increase followers' productivity. According to Robbins (2005), organizational commitment positively affects job productivity. Several researchers have also demonstrated a positive relationship between organizational commitment and productivity (e.g. Katz& Kahn, 1966; Randall, 1987; Mathieu & Zajac, 1990).
Results
The average age of the participants was 38.59 years (SD = 9.5). There are nine departments in this company, the rest being indirect departments such as human resources and accounting. In terms of gender, there were 360 men (68.7%) and 164 women (31.3%), years of service are 115 (21.9%) with 0 to 4 years of service, 154 (29.4%) with 5 to 9 years, 86 (16.4%) with 10 to 14 years, 64 (12.2%) with 15 to 19 years, 67 (12.8%) with 20 to 24 years, 33 (6.3%) with 25 to 29 years, and 5 (1.0%) with 30 years or more (Table 2).
We conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses to ensure a distinct factor structure of leadership and followership. A two-factor leadership model was y2(13) = 38.320, p<.000, CFI = .990, GFI = .979, AGFI = .955, RMSEA = .061, and a two-factor followership model was %2(26) = 71.138, p<.000, CFI = .974, GFI = .973, AGFI = .952, RMSEA = .058. A two-factor model of leadership and followership provided a good fit for the data. Therefore, we adopt a two-factor structure of leadership and followership.
Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, correlations, and reliability coefficients for each variable used in this research. Consistent with previous research (Nishinobo, 2014; Nishinobo, 2021), affective commitment was positively correlated with followership and leadership variables. The reliability of the variables ranged from .80 to .91. For subsequent analyses, we used the mean value of the items comprising each factor as the variable score.
Procedures and Experimental Design
Kelley (1992) classifies scores above midpoint 2 of a 5point Likert scale as a high group and below midpoint 2 as a low group of each followership dimension. Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) situational leadership theory is the same. However, the data obtained in this study showed a large bias in the number of combinations of followership and leadership styles (See Table 4). Therefore, we subtracted the median from the values for each dimension of followership and leadership, and divided the participants into high and low groups. Using the median value, we can roughly classify followership and leadership behaviors into high and low organizational groups (See Table 5).
Test of the Integrated Model of Followership and Leadership
To test Hypotheses 1 to 4, we performed one-way ANOVA (see Table 6). The analysis results showed that none of the hypotheses were supported. However, exemplary and conformist followership styles tend to be more productive, regardless of the leadership style. In other words, it was suggested that followership (active) may increase affective commitment. Therefore, we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the effects of followership and leadership behaviors and their interactions on affective commitment rather than on followership and leadership styles. First, we conducted a Z-transformation to avoid multicollinearity owing to correlations between the main effects and interactions (Aiken & West, 1991).
However, the post-hoc analysis also suggested the main effects of followership (active) on affective ment (B=.33, and leadership (task behavior) (B=.13, p<.05). Next, the interaction between followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) positively affected affective commitment (B=.16, p<.05). In contrast, the in- teraction between followership (active) and leadership (relationship behavior) had a negative effect on affective commitment (B=-.15, p<.05) (Table 7). The results partially supported those of Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, & Bullock (2009). The results of our multiple regression analysis confirmed that the interaction between followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) had a significant positive effect on affective commitment, and the interaction term between followership (active) and leadership (relationship behavior) had a significant negative effect on affective commitment. A graph of the significant interactions is shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Discussion
While the interaction between followership and leadership is widely acknowledged, there remains a significant gap in research regarding the impact of this interaction on follower productivity. This model illustrates how the fields of followership and leadership can be synthesized for practical applications aimed at enhancing follower productivity. Building on Bjugstad et al.'s (2006) integrative model, we hypothesized four combinations of followership and leadership styles that relate to follower productivity and conducted statistical analyses to test these hypotheses. Our findings indicate that the integrated followership and leadership style model proposed by Bjugstad et al. (2006) is not the most effective approach for impr ing follower productivity.
There are two reasons why these hypotheses were supported. First, Hersey and Blanchard's (1982) situati al leadership theory has faced significant criticism regarding its theoretical foundations (Avery & Ryan, 2002; Blake & Mouton, 1981; Graeff, 1983; 1997; Johansen, 1990; Nicholls, 1985). Furthermore, Hersey & Blanchard (1969a; 1969b), who explored the theory's origins, lack empirical support. As Norris & Vecchio (1992) and Fernandez & Vecchio (1997) point out, the key to validating situational leadership theory is establishing measurement methods that do not introduce bias. Therefore, future research should investigate various leadership and follow- ership theories. There is an ongoing discuss about the integration of followership with different leadership theories (Küpers & Weibler, 2008). For example, combining servant leadership with followership may enhance productivity, including among followers exhibiting alienated and passive styles of followership (independent, critical thinking). Second, this study utilized affective commitment as a variable to measure follower productivity. However, Blanchard et al. (2009) found that follower active engagement among followers is closely linked to affective commitment. In the future, it will be essential to measure follower productivity using variables such as work output.
On the other hand, the post-hoc analysis revealed that followership (active), leadership (task behavior), and the interaction of followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) had a positive effect on affective commitment positively influenced affective commitment. Furthermore, the interaction between followership (active) and leadership (relationship behavior) had a negative effect on affective commitment. Therefore, further research is needed to explore the impact of followership behaviors and styles, as well as the combination of various leadership theories, on followers' productivity.
Theoretical Contributions
This study makes a significant contribution to the existing literature. First, we demonstrated that an integrated model of followership and leadership styles aimed at enhancing follower productivity was not empirically supported. However, the post-hoc analysis suggests that specific followership and leadership behaviors, as well as their interactions, may influence followers' productivity. This finding aligns with previous studies (Novikov, 2016; Amanollah et al., 2013; Nishinobo, 2015) and contributes to the role-based approach to followership.
Second, this paper contributes to the understanding of the leadership process by empirically demonstrating the mutual influence between followers and leaders. The leadership process refers to the dynamic interaction between leaders and followers. However, previous research has primarily examined leader behavior as an independent variable (Hamada & Shoji, 2015). This study adopted an approach that emphasizes the reciprocal influence between followership and leadership. Our analysis revealed that the interaction between followership (active) and leadership (task behavior) had a positive effect on followers' productivity, while the interaction between active followership (active) and leadership negatively impacted productivity.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study has several limitations. The limitations of this study and future research, are outlined in four points. First, collecting and analyzing data will be essential in the future, not only for Japanese companies but also for various countries and industries. Second, this study analyzed the results of followers' responses. Future research should examine followers' behaviors as perceived by their leaders. Third, as mentioned above, we must consider various combinations of leadership and followership, such as the impact of combining servant leadership with followership on follower productivity. Furthermore, it is important to identify the variables to be used when analyzing productivity. Fourth, Kelley (1992) classified followership types using the midpoint of a five-point scale; however, in this study, the classification of followership types was significantly biased. Therefore, the following types were classified using the median. Consequently, future research should aim to collect data from more than 10,000 valid respondents.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G., (1991). Multiple regression. Testing and interpreting interaction. Sage.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Amanollah, M., Kalkhoran, N., Naami, A., & Beshlideh, K., (2013). The comparison of employees" followership styles in their job attitudes. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Research, 2(3), 115-125.
Avery, G. C., & Ryan, J. (2002). Applying situational leadership in Australia. Journal of Management Development, 21(4), 242 -262. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210423784
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J. & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 7(3), 304-319. https:// doi.org/10.21818/001c.16673
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1981). Management by grid principles or situationalism: Which? Group and Organization Studies, 6(4), 439-455. https:// doi.org/10.1177/105960118100600404
Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12, 111- 131. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150902888718
Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011) Conceptualizing followership: A review of the literature. Leadership, 7(4), 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715011416891
Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8(1), 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S1048-9843(97)90031-X
Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 285-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/257756
Graeff, C. L. (1997). Evolution of situational leadership: A critical review. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 153-170. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(97)90014-X
Hamada, Y., & Shoji, М. (2015). Leadership process ni okeru followership no kenkyudohkoh [A review of followership studies in leadership process]. Mejiro Journal of Psychology, 11, 83-98.
Herdian, H., Ridwan, R., Rias, T., Usastiawaty, С. I., Sulpakar, $. M., Arifki, Z., Sudjarwo, S., Hasan, H., Albet, M., Tubags, А. В.Р. K., & Achril, Z. (2022). A literature review of followership as independent and dependent variables and the meaning. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 16, 92-100. https:// doi.org/10.46300/9109.2022.16.10
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, К. (1982). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969a). Management of zational Utilizing human resources.
Prentice-Hall. Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969b). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal, 23(5), 26-34. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-19661-001
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of organizational behavior (Sth ed.).
Prentice Hall. Johansen, B-C. P. (1990). Situational leadership: A review of the research. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 1(1), 73-85. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920010109
Katz, D., & Kahn, К. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley and Sons.
Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. Doubleday. Kitai,
A. (2014). Organizational culture enhancing learning: Multi-level approach. Yuhikaku.
Kiipers, W., & Weibler, J. (2008). Inter-leadership: Why and how should we think of leadership and followership integrally? Leadership, 4(4), 443475. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1742715008095190
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and metaanalysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.171
Matsuyama, K., & Mori, Y. (2022). Followership kohdoh to shinritekianzensei [Followership behavior and psychological safety]. The Association of Social Studies, Doshisha University, 141, 31-48.
Nicholls, J. R. (1985). A new approach to situational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 6(4), 2-7.
Nishinobo, M. (2014). Followership to leadership ga LMX ni ooybosu eikyo; follower no kohdoh ni chumokushite [An empirical study of the influence of followership and ship to LMX: on the behavior of followers]. Management Development, 17(2), 23-31.
Nishinobo, M. (2015). An empirical study of the relationship between followership and results in Japanese companies. Management Development, 18(2), 41-50.
Nishinobo, M. (2020). Followership ron no tenkai to kongono kenkyu [A study of development of followership theory and consideration of future directions]. Journal of Business Administration and Information, Setsunan University, 27(1/2), 41-54.
Nishinobo, M. (2021). Followership in Japanese organizations: How followers influence leaders and organizations. Koyo Shobo.
Nishinobo, M., & Furuta, K. (2013). Nihon gata followership no kouseiyouso no tansakuteki kenkyu to kojintokuseikan no hikaku [Exploratory research on the elements of Japanesestyle followership and a study concerning the differences between personal characteristics of Japanese followership]. Management Development, 16(2), 65-75.
Norris, W. R., & Vecchio, R. P. (1992). Situational leadership theory: A replication. Group & Organization Studies, 17(3), 331-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601192173
Novikov, V. (2016). Followership and performance in acquisition, research and development organizations. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 9(1), 1-33.
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919-934.
Randall, D. M. (1987). Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of Management Review, 12(3), 460-471. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306561
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organizational behavior. Pearson Prentice Hall.
Takahara, R., & Yamashita, M. (2004). Examination of situational leadership model in Japanese industrial organization using questionnaire. Japanese Journal of Interpersonal and Social Psychology, 4, 41-49.
Uhl-Bien, М. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.leaqua.2006.10.007
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2013). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.leaqua.2013.11.007
Yang, Y., & Zhang, S. (2023). How does employee voice influence empowering leadership? The roles of voice tactics and gender. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 27(4), 827-843. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12641
Copyright Institute of Behavioral and Applied Management 2025