國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4
followership. Our reading of the idea of leadership and discussions we have come up with the following model of leadership which will be used and understood interchangeably with political leadership throughout this paper
Chart 2-1 Leadership tree diagram
The above figure demonstrates the factors which determine leadership. The personality traits of a leader and how they are perceived by the public (followers) and the political, social and economic environment where this interplay takes place, determine the kind of leadership which exists in a group, organization or a society. The same holds true for political leadership.
Most of the research on leadership in general and political leadership in particular has focused on either one of the two strands in the above model. Our review of the literature on leadership indicates that most studies have looked either at the personality traits or the environment in which leaders exercise their influence. There is a need to understand leadership based on both perception of the leaders and the kind of followership which follows.
In theory, political leadership is best understood by James McGregor Burns (1978) whose distinction between transformational and transactional leadership in terms of personality traits of the leaders and their interaction with followers is central to this study. Burn’s scientific study of leadership as a political phenomenon has become a currency in political leadership studies.
Burns (1978) focuses on the psychological and ethical dimensions of political leadership. Based
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5
on these dimensions he classifies leadership into two broad categories; transformational and transactional leadership. His focus is mainly on the relationship between leaders and their followers and a balance in this relationship (Burns, 2003). Transactional leadership is based on needs and is utilitarian in nature where leadership makes the provision of goods possible according to the bargain between followers and leaders.
On the other hand, transformational leadership has a moral component which demands a higher meaning or purpose. Burns (2003) defines transactional leadership as one, where ‘one person takes the initiative in making contact with others for the purpose of an exchange of valued things. This is a kind of political leadership which is based on self-interest and basic needs, for example demand for votes. Transformational leadership is when leaders engage with followers in a way that they raise each other’s moral ground and motivation (Burns, 2003). It is a type of political leadership that moves the society towards achieving higher long term collective goals with an understanding of the followers. According to Burns (2003), this is a kind of leadership which understands followers in such a way so as to define their values in a meaningful way so they could be moved towards a purposeful action. This typology of the concept of leadership has its basis purely in political science but has been borrowed by scholars working on leadership in management and other fields. Max Weber’s idea of ‘Charismatic Leadership’ fits into this equation of transformational leadership and followership. He argues that, ‘a charismatic leader is characterized by a strong personal appeal and determination, especially in crisis like situations and challenges. But for Weber (1946) if “leadership fails to benefit followers, it is likely that…charisma will disappear”.
Much of the contemporary research on leadership has ignored the followership perspective. Our research aims to fill this gap by defining leadership perception in terms of followership as we shall explore later and provide a justification for. Similar views on charismatic leadership are shared by Willner (1984), Hollander and Offermann (1990) who studied charisma as a function of leader-followers bond. According to Willner (1984), it is not the leader or his qualities but the perception of leaders in the eyes of people (followers) that counts in generating charismatic leadership.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
6
2.2. Leadership as a function of followership in theory
Most of the scholars on leadership have ignored the idea of followership as a means to measure and assess the type and perception of leadership respectively. The present section will review some of the major theoretical paradigms of leadership before introducing the literature on followership and how it defines leadership. The reader will have a clear idea of two concepts by the end of this discussion; furthermore, it will develop a base for the followership model we are using for the purposes of current research.
At the conceptual level, followership is described as a function of the follower, leader and situational variables (Thompson & Morris, 2006; Hersey, Blanchard &Johnson, 2008). It should be also noted that just like there is no universal definition of leaders, there is no succinct explanation of the idea of followership (Bass, 2008). Kelley (1992) has provided one of the most comprehensive models of followership and categorized followers based on the kind of engagement they have with leadership. Before exploring Kelley’s model in detail, which also serves as a backbone to this research, it is important to explore research surrounding followership.
Chaleff’s (2009) model suggests a characterization of followers according to follower support for the leader and the challenges they pose for the leader. Courageous followers actively participate in perceiving the leadership and associating themselves with them accordingly. This is closely in line with Kelley’s (1992) model which divides followers into different categories.
These followers know when to dissociate themselves from the leadership, especially when it becomes clear to them that the common goal is not being served (Dvir &Shamir, 2003).
Followers and followership are central to understand perception of leadership, after all the way followers identify themselves with a political leader in turn shows their perception of that leader whether it’s due to the personality traits, charisma, policies, authority or popularity of that leader. While some theories of leadership do not accommodate followership in explaining leadership others do so cursorily, while yet others give more importance to it. By looking at the current scholarship we can classify leadership theories according to the degree of their emphasis on followers and followership.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
7 a. Personality Traits Approach
Leader is at the heart of this approach. It takes into account the personal characteristics of a leader, for example; personality, motivation, physical appearance and intellect which enable individuals for leadership roles. (Kenny & Zaccaro, 1983; Harder, 2003) In the tradition of leadership research, traits approach hasn’t paid much attention to followers and followership in understanding leadership. The basic assumption of this theory is that the success or failure of a leader is independent of followers and followership.
b. Transformational and Charismatic Leadership theories
The behavior of leaders is the main focus of these theories. Though they credit leaders for the success or failure of a group, these theories do not completely discredit the role played by followers. As discussed above, transformational leadership is the one which bring about positive changes in a group, organization or at the societal level. Burns (2003) argues that this process transforms followers into leaders, where both become effective and ethical. Charismatic leadership on the other hand sees leaders as yielding extraordinary powers of influence over followers, capacity to exert influence over followers through emotional attachment (Weber, 1947). An important aspect here is the followers’ perception which is the key to maintaining the status of being a charismatic leader. Conger & Kanungo (1987) are of the view that to maintain this image, leaders must take risks, demonstrate their personal commitment and appear confident and knowledgeable.
c. Contingency Models
Contingency models rest on the assumption that leaders’ effectiveness is contingent upon the situational elements, which includes followers too. There are two main theories towards that end. The Path-Goal Theory states that the leaders influence the perception of followers in terms of desirability of following a certain path to achieve a certain goal (House & Mitchell, 1974). If the followers are convinced that by completing a certain task they can achieve a desired objective, they will stay motivated. In a way this is how the followers perceive leadership, motivational or not. The style of leadership in this
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
8
context (directive, supportive, participative or achievement oriented) is determined by (me) followers’ nature (needs, values, abilities and personalities) and (ii) nature of the task to be completed. Situational leadership theory posits that the most effective leadership style is a factor of level of readiness of followers, where readiness level is gauged by the ability and willingness of the followers to achieve a given task (Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson, 2008).
d. Leader-Member Exchange Theory (LMX)
LMX is a kind of parameter which measures the relationships between leaders and followers based on various variables (Goertzen & Fritz, 2004). In a high LMX (high quality relationship) there are high levels of trust, support and mutual influence between the followers and leaders, hence followers are more committed, productive and satisfied as compared to those with low LMX. (Grestner & Day, 1997)
e. Information Processing Theory
This theory examines the cognitive processes behind the behavior of leaders and followers. The followers make a sense of the world around them created by leaders (Brown, Scott & Lewis, 2004). Leaders make sense of the cognitive world to see what kind of behavior they should use while the followers judge the effectiveness of leadership based on the information which tells them whether leader is responsible for higher performance or not (Lord & Maher, 1991). This is particular relevant for the current research where economic performance of leaders is one of the main elements which help people make perception of leadership in China.
f. Social Identity Theory
This is the only theoretical framework in the context of given research which lays complete focus on the followers in defining and assessing leadership (Lord & Brown, 2004). Van Knippenberg & Hogg (2004) explain how the effectiveness of leadership depends on leaders’ processing of followers’ self-image. Successful leaders tend to modify their messages and persona with the changing social identity of followers. Some followers are more self-centered, while others associate emotionally with the leaders.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
9
Lord & Brown (2004) have shown in their research that most effective leaders tend to shift the focus of their followers from more individualist concerns to collective goals and aspirations.
The purpose of exploring these theoretical frameworks was to understand the levels at which leaders and followers interact and perceive each other. A survey of these theories will help readers understand the rationale of the current research which combines perception of leaders with the relative followership using Kelly’s (1992) followership model. Here is a graphical representation of above theories to understand their relative focus on followers.
Chart 2-2 Leader and Follower Centric