Contextualizing leaders' interpretations of proactive followership

• Author: Mark Eys,James Hardy,Alex J. Benson
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2077
• Date: 01 October 2016

Contextualizing leaders’interpretations of

proactive followership

ALEX J. BENSON

1

*, JAMES HARDY

2

AND MARK EYS

1,3

1

Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

2

School of Sport, Health, and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, U.K.

3

Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Summary Although proactive followership behavior is often viewed as instrumental to group success, leaders do not

always respond favorably to the actions of overly eager followers. Guided by a constructivist perspective,

we investigated how interpretations of followership differ across the settings in which acts of leadership

and followership emerge. In thematically analyzing data from semi-structured interviews with leaders of

high-performing teams, we depict how the construal of follower behaviors relates to various contextual

factors underscoring leader–follower interactions. Prototypical characteristics were described in relation to

ideal followership (i.e., active independent thought, ability to process self-related information accurately,

collective orientation, and relational transparency). However, proactive followership behaviors were subject

to the situational and relational demands that were salient during leader–follower interactions. Notably, the

presence of third-party observers, the demands of the task, stage in the decision-making process, suitability

of the targeted issue, and relational dynamics influenced which follower behaviors were viewed as appropriate

from the leader’s perspective. These findings provide insight into when leaders are more likely to endorse

proactive followership, suggesting that proactive followership requires an awareness of how to calibrate one’s

actions in accordance with prevailing circumstances. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: employee voice; follower; leadership; proactivity; qualitative research

Acts of followership equate to much more than merely acquiescing to a leader’sinfluence. As defined by Uhl-Bien,

Riggio, Lowe, and Carsten (2014), “Followership is the characteristics, behaviors, and processes of individuals

acting in relation to leaders”(p. 96). Although initial theorizing provided a relatively negative portrait of follower-

ship (e.g., Zaleznik, 1965), studies of employee voicing behavior (e.g., Oc, Bashshur, & Moore, 2014), employee

proactivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008), and contemporary theories of leadership and followership (DeRue & Ashford,

2010; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008) support the idea that followers are active agents within the leadership pro-

cess. In addition, follower proactivity is linked to a host of benefits, including enhanced psychological outcomes

(Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), decision-making in teams (Dooley & Fryxell, 1999), and performance

(Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010).

Given the benefits of proactive behavior in organizational contexts, it is perhaps not surprising that leaders

generally appreciate followers who are proactive in their roles. Early work in the area of leader–member exchange

(LMX) theory demonstrated that followers who contribute extra effort in their work environment tend to experience

higher quality LMX (Liden & Graen, 1980). Similarly, a meta-analysis revealed a positive link between follower

enthusiasm and LMX (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). Moreover, leaders who endorsed pro-

active followership characteristics had better relationships with their subordinates, and, as a result, their followers

performed at a higher level (Whiteley, Sy, & Johnson, 2012).

*Correspondence to: Alex Benson, Department of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario N2L

3C5, Canada. E-mail: bens9230@mylaurier.ca

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 16 January 2015

Revised 10 November 2015, Accepted 22 November 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 949–966 (2016)

Published online 14 December 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2077

Research Article

Despite evidence indicating that leaders generally endorse proactive follower traits, there is a potential downside

to these self-initiated behaviors. A core feature of proactive behavior is that they are anticipatory and enacted out of

one’s own volition (Grant & Ashford, 2008). On the one hand, this agentic quality is appealing to some leaders. For

example, when leaders feel personally responsible over ensuring positive change in the workplace, followers who

display proactivity are likely to receive better performance evaluations (Fuller, Marler, Hester, & Otondo, 2015).

On the other hand, this also means that proactive followership behaviors are performed withou t instruction or

permission from a leader—making them a risky endeavor because of the power dynamics associated with leader–

follower relations. Consequently, proactive followership behaviors have the potential to be misinterpreted by leaders

as acts of insubordination (Falbe & Yukl, 1992) and a threat to their authority (Burris, 2012) and can create friction

within a relationship (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010).

According to the leadership process framework, effective leadership is the result of a collaborative effort, one that

thrives when thereis complementarity in how people enact rolesof leadership and followership (Uhl-Bienet al., 2014).

For example, theremay be times when leaders would benefit fromgaining an alternative—but unsolicited—perspective

on a strategic decision (e.g., Bonaccio & Dalal, 2006). In such cases, leaders may desire a more proactive followership

orientation. In contrast, there may be times when leaders would benefit from moving forward with their established

strategy (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). In these instances, leaders may react negatively to proactive behaviors.

These examplesillustrate an issue that has been echoedby several scholars: A leader’sreceptivity to proactive behavior

is likely contingent upon a number of factors (e.g., Campbell, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Recognizing that overly

eager followers can potentially create tension and undermine cooperative effortsfrom a leader’s perspective, there is a

need to understand when leaders are more receptive to proactive behaviors.

A number of studies offer evidence that leaders’responses to proactive follower behaviors partly depend on dispo-

sitional characteristics. For example,followers who engaged in proactivebehavior, but lacked political skill(i.e., a con-

stellation of abilities related to a person’s social astuteness, networking ability, interpersonal influence, and sincerity),

ended up with no better performance evaluations than those who were passive in their role (Sun & van Emmerik,

2015). In anotherstudy, engaging in anticipatory helpingbehaviors did not translate into betterperformance evaluations

for followers who expressed too much negative affect or lacked prosocial values (Grant,Parker, & Collins, 2009). In a

study by Chan(2006), engaging in proactive behaviors led to worse performanceevaluations when followerslacked the

ability to effectively judge situations. In addition, employees who failedto provide constructive feedback when voicing

their opinions received worse performance evaluation by third-party observers (Maynes & Podsakoff, 2014; Whiting,

Maynes, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2012, Studies 1 and 3). Taken together,these studies suggest that effectivelyengag-

ing in proactive follower behaviors requires a degree of skill. What these studies do not address, however, is whether

there are opportune moments for followers to engage in proactive behavior.

The contribution of our work lies in further delineating boundary conditions of proactive followership. To do so,

we explore whether the immediate circumstances underlying a leader–follower interaction influence leaders’inter-

pretations of proactive followership. As Avolio (2007) noted, “The proximal context is the most immediate in terms

of time and in terms of impact on both leaders and followers and their relationships”(p. 29). Our investigation used

the leader process approach as a guide, which acknowledges that people engage in mutually recognized acts of

leading and following, and the leadership process is a result of how these behaviors jointly interact with one another

(Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). An advantage of the leadership process approach for exploring followership is that it does

not privilege acts of following or leading as being more influential to the leadership process. To extend previous

work that garnered insights from the perspective of the follower (Carsten et al., 2010), we concerted our efforts

on identifying which patterns of following behaviors were desired (or condemned) from individuals in positions

of leadership.

To be clear, the leadership process approach served as a way to frame our research questions, but it does not offer

concrete predictions about which contextual features may influence leaders’interpretations of proactive followership

behaviors (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014). Moreover, the epistemology of the leadership process approach is aligned with

constructivism, which emphasizes that people construct their understanding of reality through a subjective lens

(Mir & Watson, 2000). Thus, our interest was in detailing the meaning and significance that leaders ascribed to acts

950 A. J. BENSON ET AL.

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 37, 949–966 (2016)

DOI: 10.1002/job