Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries (original) (raw)

img-0.jpeg

Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries

Call for Proposals (Deadline: January 15, 2015, see further submission details below)

Lead Editor:

Rob Koonce, Creighton University (U.S.)

Associate Editors:

Michelle Bligh, NEOMA Business School (France)
Melissa Carsten, Winthrop University (U.S.)
Marc Hurwitz, University of Waterloo (Canada)
Emerald Group Publishing Limited invites submissions for Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries.
The theme of Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries revolves around the question of inclusion in leadership studies. As recognized in Mary Parker Follett’s inspiring work from 1925 on constructive conflict, the question should not be one of who is right, nor what is right, when it comes to resolving interpretational differences in leadership studies, but one of how can we work together to arrive at plus values that lead us to more worthy considerations (Graham, 2003, pp. 67-87). Wheatley (2006) further states that leadership studies should never be an either/or proposition, but one that inclusively considers all who contribute to organizational processes (pp. 27-47). Numerous leadership and management scholars also argue that leadership without followership cannot exist (Dixon, 2008; Drucker, 2001; Kelley, 1992; Malakyan, 2014; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Research by Kelley (1992) further suggests that followers contribute an average of 80 percent to the success of organizations (see also Hassan, 2011). Given the perceived significance of their contribution to organizational success, how can we better incorporate followers into the leadership equation? This is a question with global implications for both research and practice. Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries answers the question of how followership can be assessed and applied to the study of leadership through (a) the use of story in case studies, (b) scholarly post-commentaries by the case study authors, © discussion questions for furthering classroom and organizational dialogue, as well as future theoretical research, and (d) additional resources for promoting a deeper understanding of existing literature relevant to the chosen topic of a particular case study.

Background

Although followership as a formal discipline is less than a century old, the applied organizational contexts of followership have existed since antiquity. Works by Kelley (1992), Chaleff (1995, 2009), and Kellerman (2008), challenged us to more closely examine these contexts by framing them through various models of followership. According to Kellerman (2008), the leadership lens through which we view followership is too small (see also Kelley, 1992, 2008). As a result, we too often passively assume that followership is an effect rather than a cause (Kellerman, 2008, p. 14). Koonce (2013) considered this point by suggesting that the job satisfaction of a follower can be used to predict how a follower will also lead, not merely showcase how appropriate leadership will result in follower job satisfaction. The two measures of cause and effect are distinct and deserve an equal share of attention in leadership studies literature (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2014).

Exploring The Purpose of Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries

A wide variety of leadership books (Bligh & Riggio, 2013; Daft, 2005; Johnson, 2012, 2015; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Lipman-Blumen, 2005; Yukl, 2013); articles from various edited works (Avolio & Reichard, 2008; Chaleff, 2008; Hogg, 2008; Kelley, 2008; Reichard, Serrano, & Wefald, 2013; Razin & Kark, 2013); and other scholarly research (Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Hurwitz & Hurwitz, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Oc & Bashshur, 2013; van Gils, Quaquebeke & van Knippenberg, 2010), add value to educating leaders and students of leadership studies about followers and followership theory. Yet, no prior work on followership has ever been written solely through the lens of case studies and scholarly post-commentary. This approach offers an excellent way to more proactively engage future leaders and followers in issues that they are likely to face in various organizational settings covered by the cases in this publication. The importance of this distinction was perhaps best articulated in a piece that recently appeared in The New York Times in which Kristof (2014) suggested that aside from valuable time spent on scholarly research, educators need to also make themselves more accessible to the public. Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries serves this purpose.

Subtopics for Case Studies, Scholarly Post-Commentaries

The specified objective of Followership in Action: Cases and Commentaries is to help both leaders and followers better understand the practicalities and potential associated with the study of followership. In an attempt to best capture this objective, case studies with scholarly post-commentaries will be accepted for a wide variety of organizational behavior issues that apply to followers and followership.

A key component of successful proposals will be the ability to best articulate an organizational problem and its context through the lens of followership whether, for example, the problem and context involve dealing with bureaucratic leadership in the military, overcoming hierarchical communication issues in a local police force, dealing with power in a university setting, or overcoming difficulties associated with multicultural human relations in a global conglomerate.

The subtopics of a particular case study and scholarly commentary might entail a discussion of issues related to individuals, groups, or organizational systems such as communication, counterproductive behaviors, decision making, diversity, ethics, job satisfaction, motivation, negotiation, organizational culture, personality, power, politics, stress management, or workplace conflict. Furthermore, each case study and scholarly commentary may be shaped by (a) the structural dimensions of an organization such as centralization, formalization, hierarchy, or specialization, (b) circumstances associated with those dimensions involving followers of an executive leader, followers of a direct supervisor, follower groups, or follower-leader dyads; or © organizational contingencies such as size, goals, strategies, underlying beliefs and values, or the external environment in which it operates (Daft, 2013).

Submission Guidelines

On a separate title page, the following information shall be noted for all submissions:

Initial submissions (Call for Proposal only).

Submissions for the initial Call for Proposal shall consist of the following elements

Each initial submission shall be developed as a Word document, consist of no more than 250 words (inclusive of case study with scholarly commentary), and be submitted electronically using the following specifications:

All initial proposals should be directed to Rob Koonce at r2koonce@gmail.com by the specified deadlines.

Final paper submissions.

Each final paper submission shall be composed of the following elements:

Each final submission shall be developed as a Word document, consist of no more than 2,750 words (inclusive of case study, scholarly commentary, discussion questions, and additional resources), and be submitted electronically using the following specifications:

All final papers should be directed to Rob Koonce at r2koonce@gmail.com by the specified deadlines.

References

Avolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authentic followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 325-337). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bligh, M. C., & Riggio, R. E. (2013). Exploring distance in leader-follower relationships: When near is far and far is near. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 543-562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015.
Chaleff, I. (1995). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of following. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 67-87). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders (3 rd { }^{\text {rd }} ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Daft, R. L. (2005). The leadership experience. (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Daft, R. L. (2013). Organization theory & design (11th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Dixon, G. (2008). Getting together. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 155-176). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Drucker, P. F. (2001). The essential Drucker. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Graham, P. (Ed.). (2003). Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management. Washington, D.C.: Beard Books. Hassan, F. (2011). The frontline advantage. Harvard Business Review, 89(5), 106-114.

Hogg, M. (2008). Social identity processes and the empowerment of followers. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 267-276). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2009a). The romance of the follower: Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(2), 80-86. doi:10.1108/00197850910939117
Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2009b). The romance of the follower: Part 2. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(4), 199-206. doi:10.1108/00197850910962788
Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2009c). The romance of the follower: Part 3. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(6), 326-333. doi:10.1108/00197850910983929
Johnson, C. E. (2012). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (4 4th 4^{\text {th }} ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, C. E. (2015). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow (5 5th 5^{\text {th }} ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organizations (pp. 5-15). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Koonce, R. (2013). Partial least squares analysis as a modeling tool for assessing motivational leadership practices. International Annual Conference Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Management, 2013 International Annual Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kristof, N. (2014, February 15). Professors, we need you! The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html?\_r=0
Lipman-Blumen, J. (2005). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians - and how we can survive them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Malakyan, P. (2014). Followership in leadership studies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(4), 6-22.
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 919-934.
Razin, M. A., & Kark, R. (2013). The apple does not fall far from the tree: Steve Jobs’ leadership as simultaneously distant and close. In M. C. Bligh, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), Exploring distance in leader-follower relationships: When near is far and far is near (pp. 241-273). New York, NY: Routledge.
Reichard, R. J., Serrano, S. A., & Wefald, A. J. (2013). Engaging followers at a distance: Leadership approaches that work. In M. C. Bligh, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), Exploring distance in leader-follower relationships: When near is far and far is near (pp. 107-135). New York, NY: Routledge.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83-104.
van Gils, S., van Quaquebeke, N., & Knippenberg, D. (2010). The x-factor: On the relevance of implicit leadership and followership theories for leader-member exchange agreement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19(3), 333-363. doi: 10.1080/13594320902978458.
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (3 3rd 3^{\text {rd }} ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations ( 8th 8^{\text {th }} ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.