Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Leader-Follower Relationships

The study of leadership has often been synonymous with the study of leaders. Although their existence was acknowledged, the role that followers play in the dynamics of leadership has historically been understudied and often even ignored. In the United States and elsewhere, leadership has tended to be glorified while the word follower conjures up images of sheep and serfs. Yet the success of leadership undeniably depends on the actions of followers, who can choose either to support or to sabotage, and who can influence the actions of leaders for better or worse.

Recent work has emphasized the importance of positive leader-follower relationships in successful leadership; it has also noted a trend toward expanding follower roles into what was once seen as the exclusive domain of leadership. Indeed, the leaderfollower distinction is itself often arbitrary: Most senior organizational leaders are also followers, though presumably engaged in a kind of proactive followership with their bosses that makes use of their own leadership skills.

Early Trends in the Study of Leaders and Followers

Early work on leadership tended to focus on the attributes, behavior, and influence styles of leaders. It considered a leader's followers to be a homogeneous group whom the leader treated uniformly and who, it was assumed, reacted to this treatment similarly. The so-called “Great Man” (or “Great Woman”) approach popular in the early and mid 20th century sought to find attributes that would distinguish leaders and followers, as if the two were different species that could be clearly and consistently identified. Yet while this early research was able to identify traits associated with leadership, it did not support the idea that a person needed to possess a certain trait or set of traits to become a leader regardless of the situation. Attributes associated with leaders in one context were not necessarily associated with leaders in other contexts.

Studies focusing on behaviors associated with leaders had similar successes and difficulties. Most early work assumed that leaders behaved in a fairly uniform manner regardless of the followers with whom they were interacting. Rarely was it acknowledged that a leader might behave differently or have different styles of interaction with different followers, or that the quality and nature of a leader's relationship with one group of followers might be markedly different from the quality and nature of the relationship with another group. These studies also focused on how a leader's behavior influenced followers' behavior, hoping to identify those leader behaviors that would spur followers to increased motivation and productivity.

The Evidence for Mutual Influence

Despite the initial emphasis on leader attributes and behavior, work began surfacing that indicated that followers and the relationship between leader and follower needed to be given more serious attention. Laboratory studies started to show that followers could indeed influence leader behavior. For example, a study by Crowe, Bochner, and Clark showed that followers who responded only to autocratic leader behavior could make their more democratically oriented leaders start behaving autocratically. This makes obvious sense: If a leader wants a successful outcome and one type of behavior does not produce it, the leader is likely to try other behaviors. When this happens, it means that the followers have effectively changed the leader's behavior.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading