Staff Writer By Mashavira Nhamo
EXTENSIVE scholarly inquiry has historically positioned the concept of leadership as the single most vital variable in determining organisational success. Organisational literature remains predominantly leader-centric, frequently romanticising leadership roles while marginalising the critical contributions of followers. While the role of leadership cannot be overlooked, leadership cannot thrive without followers. Followership is the flip side of the leadership coin. Kelley (1992) highlights that approximately 80 percent of an organisation’s success could be attributed to followers, thus flagging a reciprocal need for followers who have the ability to advance the leader’s agenda. Furthermore, appreciating the diversity of follower motivations and behaviour allows leaders to adopt tailored approaches that meet the distinct needs of different follower groups.
Robert E. Kelley, an American business professor, is credited with pioneering the formal study of followership. Kelly (1988) challenged traditional, leader-centric organisational models by arguing that corporate success depends just as much on the quality of followers as it does on leaders. After extensive research, Kelly developed a model which features five distinct followership styles.
Followership styles were categorised by mapping an individual’s tendencies along two different continuums: engagement (from passive to active) and critical thinking (from dependent to independent). Critical thinking is where one is mindful of what is going on around them, and of what the team needs for their outcome to be achieved. Critical thinkers always give innovative and independent constructive criticism on issues. Conversely, the worst followers are those who exhibit dependent, uncritical thought, as they frequently rely on their leaders’ directives. Regarding engagement, Kelley’s followership model describes followers who are actively engaged as being generally optimistic, manifest a positive attitude towards others, are willing to go beyond expected duties and are generally good citizens (Kelley, 1992). On the contrary, less engaged followers are passive and are only interested in getting their job done. Placing the above variables across two intersecting axes, Kelly categorised followership styles into four distinct classes with a fifth middle-of-the-road category.
Alienated followers: Are often cynical or skeptical – something made them angry, disgruntled, or frustrated with the situation they are in. They have seen ‘too much’ and have become bitter in their work. They could have been passed over for promotion or have stayed too long in one position. These followers often snipe from the sidelines – they may have good ideas, but rather than giving creative solutions, they will simply accept what is obtaining, quietly opposing the leaders’ efforts. They consider themselves as mavericks who are willing to oppose management. Remarks such as, “This new policy is terrible and it’s never going to work,” are common with an alienated follower before he or she walks away.
Implications for leaders: To redeem an alienated follower, leaders must first identify what triggered the alienation and rebuild broken trust by acknowledging past organisational failures, modelling accountability, and apologising for micromanagement. Next, they must pivot the follower’s cynicism into constructive problem-solving by channelling their critical eye into finding objective flaws, demanding ownership of solutions, and rewarding independent pushback. Furthermore, leaders need to re-link the follower’s identity to the mission by assigning high-autonomy projects, connecting tasks to a macro purpose, and explicitly recognising their unique expertise. Leaders should give attention to such followers by considering their contributions. A transformational style of leadership could help renew meaning and belonging.
Effective Followers: These are the exemplary followers that rise to the challenge of exercising disciplined initiative. They are critical thinkers of the leader’s intent and align their actions accordingly. Remarks such as, “This new policy creates a bottleneck in accounting. Can we try this alternative process instead”, characterise effective followers. This type of follower demonstrates self-reliance, intelligence, enthusiasm and purpose – characteristics they share with leaders. They can adapt to changing circumstances adjust and exploit opportunities when presented with them.
Implications for leaders: Since effective followers are active, independent and perfect team players, a good leader should put into their hands, strategic responsibilities, empower them and incorporate them into the decision-making process. They need to be appreciated and be requested to mentor others. The most recommended style of leadership for such followers should be delegative/collaborative. To motivate such followers, leaders should energise decision-making at the bottom, create an atmosphere of trust and honesty and provide growth possibilities through feedback and mentorship.
Conformist: Works diligently on behalf of a leader but lacks independent thinking. They are eager to follow instructions without questioning or considering alternative options. Conformists are steady, positive and loyal. They are usually regarded as the “yes people” who want to be liked. In their quest to avoid conflict at all costs, they take the quietest path but can defend their boss to loyal extremes.
Implications for leaders: Leaders ought to encourage an unrestricted free flow of ideas that encourage creativity. Conformists should be requested to share their views during meetings to encourage them to be involved. A leadership style that is supportive and participative could be ideal. The work place should promote psychological safety, where employees are free to speak up and admit mistakes without fear of reprisals. The leader must model vulnerability by admitting his/her mistakes, admit that they too are learners and appreciate those employees who speak up
Passive Followers: These are passive and uncritical, lacking in initiative and a sense of responsibility. They lack initiative but perform the tasks given to them and stop. They don’t engage their brain enough nor do they take concrete action. Robert Kelley called this group “The Sheep”. While not showing any initiative nor responsibility, this follower type can be the result of micro-management or a negative, over-controlling and blame-oriented culture.
Implications for leaders: Passive followers require an authoritative or directive, highly structured, and coaching leadership style to transition them toward proactive engagement. Leaders ought to provide explicit, step-by-step instructions defining the what, how, and when of every assignment. Leaders may as well establish tight feedback loops, set clear deadlines and do frequent check-ins.
Pragmatic Followers: Those with this follower style often manifest moderate levels of engagement and modest levels of critical thinking. Pragmatists are uncommitted and adopt a wait-and-see approach before they act. They tend to maintain the status quo and wait for crises to pass before acting. They are the organisational ‘canary in the mineshaft’. They can migrate from one followership style to the other, to suit changing contexts, and are the early warning system when the organisation’s culture is starting to change for the worse.
Implications for leaders: A leader must leverage the pragmatist’s desire for job security by providing clear performance boundaries and framing new changes as logical steps to reduce risk. Considering that pragmatists balance cautiously between independent thinking and basic compliance, leaders should nudge them toward higher engagement by assigning low-stakes autonomous tasks and rewarding active problem-solving. A leader should avoid a highly transformational or charismatic style with pragmatists. They will view high-risk, disruptive ideas as a threat to their stability and will retreat into a defensive, compliance-only mindset. In addition, a transactional leadership style could motivate pragmatic followers by establishing clear, explicit structures of reward and compliance that appeal directly to their need for job security. By ensuring that standard performance is met with guaranteed stability, transactional leaders provide the safe environment pragmatists require to function effectively without fear of unexpected risks.
While Kelly’s model has been criticised for its static nature by failing to recognise that followership behaviours could depend on situational factors such as followers’ mood or the current environment in which they work, it helped in shifting the paradigm by elevating the importance of followers – proving that they contribute just as much to organisational success as leaders. Furthermore, it clearly defines the exemplary/effective follower, who is the ideal prototype, providing a clear blueprint for employee professional growth.
Nhamo works at The Great Heights University and is the founding director of Sixth Sense Management Consulting. He writes in his personal capacity.
