Belief and Relational Structure Characteristics: Followership.

Looking at the leader’s role is incomplete without also looking at followership because neither leaders nor followers can exist without the other (Malayan, 2014; Howell & Mendez, 2008), both are members of the same group (Hogg, 2008), and together they make up and support the belief and relational structure.?McGregor (2006) claims that the real power is in the membership because the membership makes it possible for leaders to solve the intricate problems of today’s world (note how this flips the leader-centric view to follower-centric).? The belief and relational structure typologies that the leader/follower framework reflect are behavior and belief restriction and control and behavior and belief compliance.?The leader/follower framework does not reflect the relational freedom and responsibility typology because that type lacks the hierarchical structure that creates the power-over characteristic which the leader needs to induce compliance.?

Therefore, while leader studies have dominated the literature (Meindl, 1995), the focus on followership began about the same time when leader styles began to emerge to mitigate power and control.?As followers have gained more rights and freedoms than ever before in the history of humankind (Malakyan, 2014), in the last half of the century researchers have begun to realize that the study of followership was a necessity (Malakyan, 2014 citing Kelley, 1988). In other words, “leadership cannot be studied apart from followership and that an adequate account of the leadership process must consider the psychology of followers” (Van Vugt et al., 2008, p. 193).?

In the previous section, we engaged in the popular leader-centric perception, characterized as the “Romance of Leadership” (Meindl, Ehlich, & Dukerich, 1985; Meindl, 1995), which places great responsibilities on the leader’s actions and activities, and gives leaders power and control over followers through various power currencies. Such positional power gives leaders the ability to choose followers to fit into their vision, goals, and the organization’s identity.?We also examined how different styles, with their different attributes, contribute to power and control to influence, and how different styles were created to mitigate power and control, and a slow transfer happened from leaders to followers. Finally, proposed in another articles series was a framework which sought to neutralized power and control completely, and how it changed the leader’s role into a meta-leader or facilitator using different approaches to create and foster a minimal power and control environment. This completely transferred power and control to followers.

In this article, the perspective is seen from a follower-centric position whereby followers have power and control factors in the leader/follower framework. Although power and control factors were defined in an earlier series, it bears repeating. A power and control factor is "a perceived or actual individual, group, organizational, social, cultural, political, structural, legal, environmental, or relationally applied element that gives one the ability to influence the behavior, thinking, beliefs, perception, and feelings of others towards an intentional direction, and having the ability to sustain such direction so long as the influence is present."

Power and control factors are complex subtle, covert, and overt elements. This article does not cover all the power and control factors of followers. Instead, it covers the basic overview.

Followership/Leadership Power and Control relationship

Kellerman (as cited by Northouse, 2016) recognized that there has been a steady shift from power being in the leader role to power being in the followers. However, this shift is merely an awareness that followers have their own unique power and control factors in the organization. This perspective reflects Malakyan (2014) who wrote:

"…no further steps are taken to minimize the power gap between leaders and followers within organizations and communities.?How can a follower be courageous, effective, and do all of the above when he or she is powerless??The power of making decisions and leading organizations is, for the most part, still in the hands of leaders whom we select or appoint.? Moreover, the leadership research has not taken the two sides of the equation within the discipline into careful consideration: a study of the leader and the follower as one researchable topic. As a result, the so-called static office of ‘leadership’ has been created with little or no power exchange between leaders and followers" [emphasis mine] (pp. 7-8).

Oc and Bashshur (2013) noted that although the traditional leader “has largely relegated followership to the role of passive recipients, or best, moderators of leader influence and behaviors” (p. 919), there has been a shift in focus whereby followers are recognized as having an influence over leaders and their behavior, and that early leadership literature illustrates that leaders are not isolated actors immune from the influence of their followers (citing Fielder, 1967; House, 1971; and Vroom and Yetton, 1973).?This shift has facilitated the change in leader styles to recognize power and control of followers.?

So, where do followers get the power that allows them some control in the organization? In reference to power currencies, followers have their own power and control factors. They have the same power bases as leaders. Followers have been recognized to have more knowledge than leaders due to their numbers and accumulated experiences (Hogg, 2008), more control over information through a sharing network, and may have positional power outside of formal hierarchical systems (e.g., matriarch/patriarch).

While there is an assumption that leaders hold the power to create and maintain the belief and relational structure with followers being passive and compliant (Hogg, 2008), the belief and relational structure is understood as a balance or imbalance of power and control held in tension by leaders and followers who maintain the structure’s stability and identity.?It is like a scale. No matter how much power and control one side has, the other side must maintain the difference. When both sides have equal power, then the relational structure provides relational freedom and responsibility. When it is unequal, then one side is being more compliant to the other who has more power and control. Extreme imbalance creates more restriction and control through greater helplessness. This balance/imbalance maintains the belief and relational structure, their mutual identity, and the identity of the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

In the above simile, one can see the belief and relational structure typologies. For example, within the behavior and belief compliance typology (in which there is choice), to an extent, both leaders and followers are compliant because followers need to establish a relationship and belong to the organization and to maintain the identity given by the organization, and leaders need members to follow them and validate their position (Hogg, 2008).?Although the ideal is that both parties are fully vested and committed (which may eventually happen) creating a partnership (Maroosis, 2008), if either party fails to meet the belief and relational expectations in any way, the self-identity and relationship becomes endangered (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). In other words, followership has the power and control over their side of the environment and has the ability to choose how to respond to the power and control being exerted by leaders.?This power and control is exerted back to the leader in order to control the leader.?The weight of the power and control depends on the type, structure, philosophy, and processes of organization.???

A rule that is important here is: The belief and relational expectations that leaders set for followers become belief and relational expectations followers embrace for themselves, which, in turn, become the belief and relational expectations for leaders.? In the belief and relational structure typologies, the relationship within the organization creates a mutually supporting power and control dynamic, a double bond, whereby each reinforces the established belief and relational structure.

Power and Control Factors of Followers

The first power and control factor is that followers have power to choose how to respond.? Adler (2009), in his discussion of Marxist organization studies lists three responses to control: Alienation, consent, and resistance.? Alienation represents the concatenated of a loss of autonomy in an organization, the result of an interpersonally inconsiderate leader style, and the integral part of the work distinct from free activity.?This happens in a behavior and belief restriction and control type organization. Adler describes content through Burawoy who argues that “consent is created by ensnaring workers in activities-‘games’- that encourage work effort (securing surplus labor) while camouflaging the underlying exploitation (obscuring, mystifying surplus labor)” (p. 77) (see Burawoy on three forms of games).?Resistance comes in many forms. Followers resist through collective action and, individually, through oppositional misbehavior, the use of the legal system to express their grievances, whistle‐blowing and withdrawal.

Resistance is a result of many factors. Such resistance be triggered when workers' dignity is threatened. Alder cites Hodson (2001) who argues that threats to workers' dignity is created by "mismanagement and abuse, overwork, illicit constraints on autonomy, and manipulative forms of employee involvement. Workers assert their need for dignity with a mix of resistance behaviors, organizational citizenship, independent meaning systems, and group relations" (pg. 13 in section 4.4.1.5.).

Responses vary. Alvesson and Blom (2019), found that when a leader’s efforts are ineffective or unsuccessful, “subordinates nod politely, but take little notice. They may ‘play’ doing followership to ‘leadership’, but there is no in-depth influencing that really sticks.” (p. 32). Sometimes resistance may be the result of the incompatibility of the belief and relational structure between the leader and the followership (e.g., the leader may be acting from a behavior and belief restriction and control and the followership from the more autonomous behavior and belief compliance). Thus, the leader would be viewed as attempting to change the behavior and belief structure of the organization by taking away choice.?While that may be possible for individuals first entering into an organization, it is unlikely for a followership whose behavior and belief structure is “fixed.”?Furthermore, such change may require a voluntary (or involuntary) relinquishment of power and control to the leader (as when a leader enters an organization that has a different belief and relational structure than their organization).?Or the change may be temporary whereby the organization changes for the current leader but reverts back to the previous status quo when the leader is not present or leaves.

The second power and control factor of followers is similar to the first: Followers have the ability to affect leaders and their relationship (Hogg, 2008; Howell and Mendez, 2008; and Shamir, as cited in Howell and Mendez, 2008). Howell and Shamir (2005), as cited by Howell and Mendez (2008) states: followers fulfill an “active role in constructing the leadership relationship, empowering the leader and influencing his or her behavior, and ultimately determining the consequences of the leadership relationship” (p. 28).? Followership chooses leaders and sustain their leadership (Hogg, 2008).?Hogg describes social identity theory of leadership as “a social psychological theory that focuses on the identity function of leadership” (p. 266).?According to Hogg, “The key idea is that as group membership becomes increasingly psychologically salient and important to members of the group, and members identify more strongly with the group, effective leadership rests increasingly on the leader being perceived by followers to possess prototypical properties of the group” (p. 269).?Another dimension of this comes from research by Steffens, Haslam, and Reicher (2014) who cites previous research which suggests that “leaders tend to be seen as more charismatic by followers the more prototypical they are of a group membership that both followers and leaders share” (p. 299).? Seen is how salience and the importance of group membership is held by those in a behavior and belief compliant typology and even more strongly by those in a behavior and belief restriction and control belief and relational structure. To maintain and protect the identity of the member’s and organization’s identity (and structure), the followers choose leaders that will exhibit the prototypical attributes and protect the established identity of the organization.?

Identity is central to the belief and relational structure of the organization because it describes its social world in terms of acceptable belief and relational expectations, categories of members (men, women, race, etc.), occupations associated with the organization’s function, concept of self, and other attributes.?Such established identity determines who is in the in-group and the out-group.?The person that embodies the best and most important attributes is considered the prototype of the group and is chosen by the followership to be the leader. In this respect, followership has power and control.?For example, in a behavior and belief compliant belief and relational structure typology, compliance becomes an expected norm.?An incumbent or established leader is expected to continue an expected message and to practice the established behavior and belief expectations. Leaders are closely monitored for their reflection of the values they espoused, or else they open themselves up to the "hypocrisy attribution dynamic.” To avoid this undermining dynamic, leaders are expected to uphold their commitment to the belief, behavior, and relational expectations embedded in the culture even in the most trying times (Chatman & Cha, 2003).?A leader that does not fulfill the prototypical social and economic contract may not be given the power currencies necessary to be considered a “real” leader outside their stated role.?In other words, the leader has no credibility for followers to follow them and may be “moved” to the fringe (socially or literally) or removed from the organization or group.?This places leaders in a position of compliance to the followership, giving the followership the ability to exert power on leaders to comply with the organizational behavior and belief expectations (Hogg, 2008).?What followers expect for themselves reflects the same expectations for leaders (a rule of thumb).?

Also, followership can create a leader by recognizing in a person the prototypical attributes that represents the organization’s identity, and they can choose to follow that person even if that person is not in a formal leader position.?For example, this may happen with executive leaders whose role have not been validated by the followership.?Though the executive may be placated due to their positional power, the followership may choose someone who has demonstrated that they are “one of them.”

Although leaders have some flexibility to create and innovate, if the leader strays too far away from the prototype (see Vugt, Hogan, and Kaiser, 2008), then the leader risks losing their leader position.? For example, if a leader pushes the belief and relational structure too far towards a different belief and relational structure typology, the organization and its members may begin to lose their identity.?The followership, instead of moving forward to establish a new identity, may seek out a leader that will take them (and the organization) back to the “good ‘ol days” of social and organization stability.?Hogg (2008) characterizes this as a loss of salience.?The loss of salience creates an identity crisis whereby followership loses the identity that served as comfort and anchor for actions. Therefore, leaders (and followers that want to be a leader) have to comply with the belief and relational structural prototype that the followers expect or else will not become a leader. In the same way, leaders that do not comply may lose their leadership status even if they are in a leader’s role.

A third power and control factor is the ability of the follower to influence the relationship.? Such power and control factor relates to follower’s interactive behaviors that in the right context can be beneficial to the relationship, but in the wrong context can be destructive to the relationship.?The full spectrum of behavior and belief compliant and behavior and belief restriction and control, as related to the follower, can be seen in Howell and Mendez’ (2008) effective and ineffective role orientations.?In a business context that exhibits behavior and belief restriction and control, followers exhibit less effective interactive roles, and the roles become more interactive as one approaches the behavior and relational freedom and responsibility side of the spectrum, which allows more choice and more freedom to interact.

Howell and Mendez (2008) list 7 effective followership behaviors.? Effective followership behaviors are being compliant to the performance expectations by 1) demonstrating knowledge and competence for work tasks; 2) being able to build collaborative and supportive relationships with coworkers and the leader; 3) defending the leader in front of the group as a show of support and taking his/her side; 4) looking out for the leader by exerting influence in a confident and unemotional way; 5) demonstrating proper expected behaviors for the organization (e.g. proper dress, speech, etiquette, participate in rituals, showing support for values, etc.); 6) support for the atmosphere of the organization (e.g. if performance-oriented, profit-centered, sales-centered) through language and behavior; and if changes happen, be willing to participate in the change.?

The power and control factor that is imbedded in these effective behaviors is the willingness of the follower to adopt a transformational approach with the leader or organization by adopting its values and helping the leader/organization to fulfill its goals-even if the follower does not agree with the goals or the behaviors and belief expectations. This allows the follower to gain influence within the organization and with the leader. When it is ineffective, the results are often met with conflict whereby the follower loses power and risk losing a place in the organization.

The fourth power and control factor is collective action.?This control factor manifests itself through unified actions by a team, group, or organization which creates a kind of alternative source of leader (Marchington, 1979).?Such unifying action may be through the formation of a union, coalition, gaining group consensus, or alliances.?Such unification is held together by place, common identity, and a common interest (Tattersall, 2010). Also, the unifying action can be an organized strategy towards an end according to the interests of its members. Coalition and unionism are a kind of community unionism and has three attributes or elements: Organizational relationships and structure, common concern, and scale (Tattersall, 2010).?Coalitions are formed when two or more groups build relationships to forge a shared common interest or agenda to achieve particular change in a specific place.? The act of collective action does not always mitigate power and control. Collective action can also reinforce or create new controls when agreements on procedures, rules, relationships, and compensation are made in exchange for concessions (Baron, Dobbin & Jennings, 1986).?This often results in employers to implement more control practices that appear “more ‘natural,’ impersonal, and in the worker's interests" (Gordon, Edwards, & Reich, 1982, as cited by Baron, Dobbin & Jennings, 1986, p. 365).?

Conflict Approaches by Followers

The power and control factors above reflect conflict approach styles by followers. Although some conflict styles may suggest a sharing of power and control, conflict approaches in this context suggest that compliance is used to avoid conflict in favor of the leader’s and organization’s belief and relational expectations. The different types of conflict styles used here are adapted from Thomas-Kilman conflict modes (Raines, 2013) and are used to relate conflict to relational priorities. Here, the conflict modes are used to relate relationship with power and control. The five conflict modes are: accommodation, avoidance, assertiveness, collaboration, and compromising. How the followership chooses to respond to conflict may result in greater or less effective interaction (Howel and Mendez, 2008).?

Collaboration and compromising are conflict styles that require working out conflicting elements in the relationship. Followers are willing to engage in the conflict work (known as Conflict Development) because they are considered as more equal in power (approaching the situation with a power-with dynamic) in the decision-making process. Collaboration is more equal than compromising because collaboration seeks to work out differences through a shared and respected view of others, while compromising is often resolved through a leveraged exchange or contract in which both parties agree to comply.

In our discussion of followership, compromising may be the limit of the conflict approach because of the exchange characteristic between leaders and followers. Collaboration can only happen between equals, and the leader/follower is (as you can see in how I presented it) leaders over follower. Followers, upon reaching a point of collective or value-laden power, can only hope to negotiate a "better" contract that benefits themselves, while the organization can only negotiate a contract that will advantage their interests. Neither has trust due to the inequality, believing that the other is only out to take advantage. The followers believe that the leaders are out to exploit, and the leaders will believe the followers will whittle diminish their role and/or take away their power.

Avoidance, as the term implies, uses various tactics to avoid compliance and to avoid addressing the conflict due to the power differential that leaves the followers helpless. They also believe that addressing the conflict will negatively affect the relationship with leaders and fellow members. Such tactics may be using resistant behaviors, or counter-measures (McGregor, 2006) like passive aggression, restricting output, featherbedding, sabotage of organization objectives, deflection, antagonism, refusing to accept responsibility, withdrawal (physically, emotionally, psychologically). or walking away, which is part of the choice aspect of behavior and belief compliant belief and relational structure.? Accommodation is when a person chooses to comply in order to save the relationship, to maintain their position and/or gain benefits, or to escape negative consequences (punishment).?An example of accommodation comes from Kelley (2008) who

"…described one type of ineffective follower who interacts frequently with his leader. He labeled these followers ‘sheep’ or ‘yes-people’ who rely on the leader to do their thinking. They attach themselves to their leader and go along with whatever the leader decides. Their motivation is often calculative, to secure desired rewards from the leader or to satisfy their need for safety or security in a threatening environment. They yield to the leader’s judgment and ‘know their place.’ They tend to say what the leader wants to hear and withhold important information that the leader may dislike. In some cultures and organizations, this style of followership is encouraged and rewarded…" (p. 28).

The belief and relational structure is so restrictive that the follower believes that the only acceptable way to respond is not to interact but to fully meld into the environment through accommodation.

Even more restrictive is an organization whereby one is left with one way to resolve the conflict-comply or leave.?This conflict style is distributive in nature and reflects the behavior and belief restriction and control typology whereby the organization is saying to the followers, “It is our way or no way,” which may result in a response by the followers taking the same stance (It is our way or no way).?The side that has the most power in the conflict "wins" (and the other side loses).?This is reflected in the need for coalitions and unions whose numbers affect the power ratio, creating a level of power that has the ability to bring the conflict to a point of collaboration or compromise (a contract solution), or, if the conflict reaches a point of no return, dissolution. Such power is shown in the followership threatening to strike, and then making good on the threat by walking out of the organization until such time the organization moves toward those two conflict positions where their interests or needs can be met. However, if the followers cannot collectively organize to even out the power, and the distributed position continues, the members may resort to avoidance, exhibiting passive aggression that negatively affects culture, organizational performance, etc.

There may be little or no choice of the type of conflict response in organizations whose organizational structures and process comprise of leaders and followers. Such an organization will always have some "tug of war" over power and control due to unequal power. Followership that have limited power and control within the organizational system chooses the conflict approach that best serves their goals and objectives. While organizational leaders certainly have more power, such power has its limitations. Followers has conflict approaches that will certainly make leaders think about how they use their power.

Conclusion

While leaders have power and control factors, some which are built into the role and position, followers have their own power and control factors that allow them to mitigate the helplessness due to power inequality. While there are power and control factors that individual followers possess, unless a follower possess valuable power currencies, a follower may not be able to exert any influence over the leader or the organization. Thus, the power and control factors are often vested in the follower's unified collective action which requires coordination and stability.

The central theme of followership vs leaders is the energy and resources spent to maintain the power and control of leaders over followers, and the followers to equalize the power and control. This struggle creates conflict and different responses to the conflict. What is important is that relational energy, time, and resources are spent in this conflict which takes away the energy, time, and resources that can be spent in the productive work of the organization. Such struggle leads to the organization's eventual demise.

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Baron, J. N., Dobbin, F. R., & Jennings, P. D. (1986). War and peace : the evolution of modern personnel administration in U. S. industry. American Journal of Sociology, 92(2), 350–383.

Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management Review, 45(4), 20–34.

Hogg, M. A. (2008). Social identity and the empowerment of followers. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 267–276). Jossey-Bass.

Howell, J. P., & Mendez, M. J. (2008). Three perspectives on followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of Followership: How great Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations (pp. 25–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kelley, R. E. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 29 (November-December), 142–148.

Malakyan, P. G. (2014). Followership in leadership studies: a case of leader-follower trade approach. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 6–22.

Marchington, M. (1979). The issue of union power. Employee Relations, 1(4), 3–7.

Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341.

Meindi, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The Romance of Leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102.

McGregor, D. (2006). The Human Side of Enterprise (Annotated). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Northouse, Peter, G. (2016). Leadership (7th ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. Leadership Quarterly, 24, 919–934.

Raines, S. S. (2012).?Conflict management for managers: Resolving workplace, client, and policy disputes. John Wiley & Sons.

Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2014). Up close and personal: Evidence that shared social identity is a basis for the “special” relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 296–313.

Tattersall, A. (2010). Power in Coalition?: Strategies for Strong Unions and Social Change. ILR Press.

Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, Followership, and Evolution: Some Lessons From the Past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196.