Within the field of management studies, the most researched and published
topic is easily leadership. In nearly all leadership studies, attention
is focussed on the leader, the overriding assumption being, it is the leader
who influences the followers. Leadership, however, can also be influenced
by the followers. This research note suggests two roles that followers play
in influencing the leader's success.
The first way followers exert influence is simply through their "followership";
unless there are followers, there are no leaders; unless the leaders induce
others to follow, there is no leadership. Followership in this context,
it is important to note, is willing and voluntary. Any leader who attempts
coercion and threats to induce others to comply will likely find himself,
rather than followed, only stymied and rendered ineffective.
The second role followers play in leadership is contained in the concept
of "met expectations." This concept states that obtaining followers
depends on how closely the leader meets the followers' expectations; i.e.
the leader who possesses the characteristics and attributes followers expect
will gain a significant following. Several observers of the management/leadership
scene have noted the connection between follower expectations and leadership
effectiveness. According to George Strauss and Leonard Sayles (1980), respected
researchers and authors in the field of management, "every group has
definite
expectations about what qualifications their leader should possess. A leader
who fails to live up to these expectations is considered unfit for the job"
(pp.118-119). An important note here is that the followers determine what
the necessary leader characteristics should be, not management nor any host
of expert consultants.
The next step, essential for a practicing manager, is a polling of followers
to determine the nature of their expectations. My search of pertinent literature
revealed only one such polling attempt. With a goal of augmenting the scanty
research on this subject, I recently studied a group of employees about
their expectations. The group I surveyed consisted of a readily available
sample of workers---Salem State students in Management Theory and Practice
classes. Their extensive part-time jobs gave them the opportunity to handle
and observe first-hand various types of leadership characteristics. A total
of 169 students over a two year period were invited to answer the following
questionnaire prompt:
In the spaces below, please list five characteristics you believe a supervisor
should possess in order to earn your willing followership of that supervisor.
The ten most frequently cited qualities expected of a supervisor are
these:
Rank No. % of total Responses Responses
1. Knowledge of the work, tasks. operations 74 16.3
2. Friendly, personable, approachable 65 14.3
3. Exhibits fair and consistent treatment 50 11.0
4. Listens, consults, open-minded 49 10.8
5. Communicates well 47 10.3
6. Helps out, pitches in, works alongside 36 7.9
7. Respects and trusts subordinates 35 7.7
8. Firm, in control of situation, willing
to exercise supervisor's power 35 7.7
9. Rewards and gives credit 32 7.0
10. Caring, shows concern 32 7.0
455 100.0
The survey results showed, first of all, variation in the importance assigned
to the attributes of a leader one might expect. The percentage of votes
for knowledge, the most frequently cited quality, exceeded the vote percentages
of the last five attributes -- by a factor of no less than two. Can we conclude
that for this group of workers it is twice as important for their leader/supervisor
to possess work and task knowledge than to exhibit helping out, respect,
firmness, reward-giving, and caring? Perhaps this finding is not surprising
given that the sample consisted of a younger, less experienced group of
employees not yet fully accustomed to taking charge, more dependant on the
guidance of a leader.
This apparent other-directedness is further evidenced by the relatively
greater importance assigned to friendliness, personability, and approachability,
the second-ranked leader characteristics.
What's missing from the survey findings, interestingly, are characteristics
conventionally held to be indicative of a "good" supervisor. Honesty
and integrity do not make the top ten placings, receiving the vote of merely
twelve student workers. Only just making the top ten categories was exhibiting
concern for employees, a leadership quality popularly believed to be crucial.
Conscientiousness, another usually favored trait, is absent from the list.
Given the thesis that "met expectations" produce unity, which
in turn produces effective leadership, what conclusions for applications
might we draw? One is that this approach to leadership might be applied
to any manager/supervisor- employee/worker relationship in any type of organization
setting, business, government, or non-profit. Any leader who wishes to be
more effective could conduct a poll of his or her followers' preferences
in leadership skills. Upper level managements could use the results of such
polls to better select supervisors. Such expectation poles, it is important
to note, must be specific to each employee group; workers differing in terms
of age, experience, education or skill level might easily have different
expectations of what attributes their leader should possess.
Can this "met expectations" concept be applied in the college
classroom with the professor/student relationship? Is the professor who
possesses a set of characteristics expected by the students a more effective
teacher? Would the students being "led" by such a professor be
more willing to "follow"? Certainly parallels exist between the
two relationships. Both workplace leaders and professors seek to have their
followers accomplish certain tasks. Although the tasks are quite different,
it is reasonable to postulate that students would be more willing and more
motivated to do the assignments of a professor whose attributes meet their
expectations, leading to increased learning. In developing and administering
a survey instrument to solicit from the students characteristics they expect
their professor to possess, we might keep in mind the caveat that different
demographic types of students might have different expectations.
My research presents a bottom-up approach to leadership which, through concepts
of followership and "met expectations," illustrates the influential
role the followers play in leadership dynamics. Put simply: met expectations
= followership = effective leadership.
SOURCES AND FURTHER READINGS
Bernard, C. I. (1938). Functions of the Executive. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Kanter, R.M. & B. A. Stein (1979). Life in Organizations. New
York: Basic Books.
Kouzes, J.M. & B.Z. Pozner (1990). "The Credibility Factor: What
Followers Expect from their Leaders." Business Credit, 92, No.
5.
Levinson, H. (1968). The Exceptional Executive. Cambridge:
Harvard.
Levinson, H. (1981). Executive. Cambridge: Harvard.
Simon, H.A. (1945) Administrative Behavior. New York: The Free
Press.
Straus, G & L. R. Sayles (1980). Personnel: The Human Problems of Management.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Yukl, G.A. (1981). Leadership in Organizations.Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Theodore L. Hansen, who has taught at Salem State College since 1978, is
now an emeritus Associate Professor of Management. Last April he presented
a paper on "Subordinate Expectations and Effective Leadership: An Examination"
at a faculty symposium for the School of Business and Economics.