GettingStarted
Warren Bennis (2007) observed that
leaders, followers, and a
common goal are inseparable, and the leadership process is
grounded in the follower
–
leader relationship. The leadership
academy as well as the vast majority of research conducted in the
field of organizational leadership, until r
ecent years, has been
considered to be “leader
–
centric,” meaning focused far more on
the role of leaders and their achievements and/or failures than on
the value of actively engaged and supportive followers. Riggio
(2014) argued for a better understanding
of how leaders and
followers “co
–
produce” leadership. Co
–
creating leadership between
leaders and followers holds the promise of many positive results,
from better meeting organizational goals to fostering greater
engagement among stakeholders.
As we have l
earned through an examination of Chaleff’s
courageous follower dimensions and follower types, the role of an
effective follower requires the support of the leader and, at times,
a constructive challenge to the leader. The failure of the follower to
exercis
e courage to speak truth to power, or to intelligently dissent
with those who make very poor or unethical decisions that
threaten the well
–
being of the organization, means that such
followers share in the responsibility for whatever consequences the organization may suffer.
For this discussion forum, begin by reading the
To Follow or Not to Follow(new tab)
chapter about Sam Stokes (Page 171-177). Then, identify a publicly known example whereby a follower(s) exercised assertiveness or even courage by speaking up when the leader(s) were behaving badly or unethically. Such case studies may be based upon news stories, articles, or other publicity that may be cited in your work. Higher profile examples of this include Enron, Volkswagen, and Lehman Brothers (no, please do not choose one of these three examples).
Instructions
(PDF document)
1. Read/review the assigned
Same Stokes case study (embedded link)(new tab)
.
2. dentify a publicly known example whereby a follower(s) exercised assertiveness or even courage by speaking up when the leader(s) were behaving badly or unethically. Such case studies may be based upon news stories, articles, or other publicity that may be cited in the group’s work. Higher profile examples of this include Enron, Volkswagen, and Lehman Brothers (no, please do not choose one of these three examples).
3. Post your initial posting (250-300 words)
Getting Started
Warren Bennis (2007) observed that
leaders, followers, and a
common goal are inseparable, and the leadership process is
grounded in the follower
–
leader relationship. The leadership
academy as well as the vast majority of research conducted in the
field of organizational leadership, until r
ecent years, has been
considered to be “leader
–
centric,” meaning focused far more on
the role of leaders and their achievements and/or failures than on
the value of actively engaged and supportive followers. Riggio
(2014) argued for a better understanding
of how leaders and
followers “co
–
produce” leadership. Co
–
creating leadership between
leaders and followers holds the promise of many positive results,
from better meeting organizational goals to fostering greater
engagement among stakeholders.
As we have l
earned through an examination of Chaleff’s
courageous follower dimensions and follower types, the role of an
effective follower requires the support of the leader and, at times,
a constructive challenge to the leader. The failure of the follower to
exercis
e courage to speak truth to power, or to intelligently dissent
with those who make very poor or unethical decisions that
threaten the well
–
being of the organization, means that such
Getting Started
Warren Bennis (2007) observed that leaders, followers, and a
common goal are inseparable, and the leadership process is
grounded in the follower-leader relationship. The leadership
academy as well as the vast majority of research conducted in the
field of organizational leadership, until recent years, has been
considered to be “leader-centric,” meaning focused far more on
the role of leaders and their achievements and/or failures than on
the value of actively engaged and supportive followers. Riggio
(2014) argued for a better understanding of how leaders and
followers “co-produce” leadership. Co-creating leadership between
leaders and followers holds the promise of many positive results,
from better meeting organizational goals to fostering greater
engagement among stakeholders.
As we have learned through an examination of Chaleff’s
courageous follower dimensions and follower types, the role of an
effective follower requires the support of the leader and, at times,
a constructive challenge to the leader. The failure of the follower to
exercise courage to speak truth to power, or to intelligently dissent
with those who make very poor or unethical decisions that
threaten the well-being of the organization, means that such
CHAPTER
20
To Follow or not to
Follow? A Tale of
Corrupt Power and
Unethical Leadership
Melissa K. Carsten
A
s an executive of Garamond Global Research, Sam Stokes
had made it to the top. He had worked hard over the years,
devoting his life to growing and developing a high impact
and highly regarded global research organization. The company was
extremely profitable, working mostly with small client organizations
looking to conduct market research and analysis. What Sam didn’t
know, was that he had lost the respect, loyalty, and support of
his followers long ago. As a leader, his actions were deemed
unacceptable, and even unethical, however few followers had the
guts to stand up and voice their frustration.
Over the many years that he worked at Garamond, Sam
amassed a great deal of power and influence over major company
decisions, use of company resources, as well as hiring and firing
decisions. As he continued to gain power, Sam’s subordinates began
to notice that he became more secretive about how resources were
being used, and much more selective about who received the
resources. The company also began experiencing greater amounts of
turnover from Sam’s direct and indirect reports, with the average
tenure of his employees being only 2.5 years. As more and
more employees left the organization, rumors stemming from
ex-employees began to surface. The stories told of Sam’s misuse of
company funds, favoritism with certain employees, and seemingly
unethical actions with client projects. It wasn’t long before current
employees began noticing his indiscretions too.
171
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
2
0
1
6
.
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
G
r
o
u
p
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
.
A
l
l
r
i
g
h
t
s
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
M
a
y
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d
i
n
a
n
y
f
o
r
m
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
f
a
i
r
u
s
e
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
U
.
S
.
o
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
l
a
w
.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY
AN: 1423630 ; Melissa K. Carsten, Rob Koonce, Michelle C. Bligh, Marc Hurwitz.; Followership in Action : Cases and Commentaries
Account: s8876267.main.relall
For example, on one occasion, Sam was confronted by Terry,
one of his subordinates who asked why his request for more project
funding was denied. Terry explained that the funds were necessary
to complete work that had been requested by his client organization.
According to the budget documentation, the increased funds would
support a second phase of the project that could potentially bring
the company a great deal of revenue. Sam’s response to the inquiry
was coarse and defensive. He told Terry that fund allocation was
none of his business, and that he had to complete the project with
the original budget. When Terry asked for more explanation, and
requested a meeting with Sam to rework budget money and perhaps
come to a solution together, Sam replied, “It’s not your money, so
you don’t have a say in how it is spent.”
On another occasion, a subordinate named Morgan confronted
Sam on his decision to promote an employee who had poor levels of
productivity, shirked his responsibilities, and took credit for work
that he did not complete. The promoted employee was selected over
others who had stellar performance records and went above and
beyond their minimal work responsibilities. Sam was offended that
Morgan would question his decision, and became angry at the
implication that he used favoritism to fill the position. When
Morgan explained that she simply wanted to understand the
reasoning behind the decision, and that she feared others would
become disillusioned at the perceived inequity, Sam replied “If
others have a problem with it, then they can find their way to the
door. I am not here to make people happy, I am here to ensure the
success of the company.”
Perhaps the most abrasive of Sam’s actions was one that directly
affected a project team who worked long days and put in many
hours to meet a short deadline for a high profile client. As the team
completed their work, Sam insisted on seeing the final report so he
could make modifications. Perceiving that they had little choice in
the matter, the team handed over their report to Sam believing that
he would improve upon their work. Instead, Sam deleted major
sections of the report that were not seen as positive or favorable for
the company, and replaced them with falsified data that
demonstrated a larger market impact than the client was actually
having. When the team requested a final version of the report, Sam
simply told them that they no longer had to worry about it, and that
he “took care of it.” One member of the team confronted Sam on
his secrecy, stating that he did not feel comfortable delivering the
final report to the client without cross checking all the findings. The
subordinate also stated that he worried the report might be painting
an overly positive picture of their research. Sam told him: “We do
what we have to do to survive. Do you think I worked my way to
172 MELISSA K. CARSTEN
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
the top by doing things the ‘right’ way? Sometimes you just have to
give the client what they want rather than what they need.”
Although a few employees confronted Sam directly about
his decisions and use of resources, most of them remained silent.
They were uncomfortable questioning Sam’s actions due to his
level of power and status in the company. They felt that confronting
a manager of Sam’s stature would be inappropriate and perhaps
lead to negative consequences. Although Sam had never fired
anyone for asking questions, most of the subordinates feared
that, at the very least, they would fall out of his favor if they ever
crossed him.
With so few subordinates willing to challenge Sam’s actions, his
indiscretions only grew more bold and overt. He would fly his
family first-class on extravagant vacations using company funds. He
was also witnessed falsifying productivity reports, and providing
raises to himself and his selected in-group. Others in the company
had not received raises or recognition for their work, while Sam
favored a small group of insiders without merit.
Meanwhile, the rest of the employees felt as though they lacked
positive and supportive leadership. They began to turn to one
another as a sounding board and reached out to each other to
discuss their projects, challenges they were facing, and for advice on
how to manage clients and staff. Over time, one of them named
Clara Rogers began to emerge as the “best” go to person. When an
employee had a problem, needed advice, or expertise, the suggestion
that was made was “go see Clara.”
Clara Rogers had only been an employee for five years, but had
quickly earned the respect and admiration of her co-workers. They
saw her as the “expert” and the one they could count on for both
good advance and compassion. Although she did not know it at the
time, Clara had earned a great deal of informal power among her
coworkers and was clearly regarded as a leader amongst her peers,
even though her position title afforded her no legitimate authority.
Over time, the employees began to identify with Clara, support her
vision for the company, and invest personal energy in her ideas or
agenda.
While Sam continued to demonstrate duplicitous behavior,
Clara emerged as an informal leader with numerous followers. One
employee stated: “We follow Sam because we have to, but we
follow Clara because we want to.” The company was able to stay in
business for many years despite Sam’s indiscretions. Although they
did suffer losses in terms of turnover, many employees remained
with the organization because they identified so strongly with Clara,
and because they saw hope and meaning in the vision and direction
she offered for the company.
A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 173
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
Scholarly Commentary
Leadership is not about titles. It is not about seniority. It is
not about status, and it is not about management.
Leadership is about power, and the ability to know when
and how to use it to influence the people around you to do
and become more. (Terina R. Allen, President & CEO
ARVis Institute)
In the thousands of books and articles written about leadership, it is
often forgotten that followers are an essential part of the equation.
As depicted in the case above, followership can take many different
forms. Some followers may be silent, deferent, and blindly obedient,
while others challenge their leaders, question their decisions, and
stand up against tyranny. Still others can decide that they don’t
want to follow at all and reserve their energy and enthusiasm for
leaders who are truly inspiring and trustworthy. These different
forms of followership are at the discretion of the individual
employee, influenced by the leader and context, and can have
profound effects on the success of an organization.
In their review of followership theory, Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe,
and Carsten (2014) discuss the role-based approach to followership
as an investigation of the follower beliefs, actions, and outcomes of
followers (subordinates), working in relation to leaders (managers)
in the organization. This approach builds on the notion of follower
role orientations, or the beliefs followers hold regarding the tasks,
responsibilities, and competencies that should be demonstrated
while serving in a follower role (cf. Parker, 2000, 2007; Parker,
Wall, & Jackson, 1997). According to studies conducted by Carsten
and colleagues (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012; Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West,
Patera, & McGregor, 2010), followers may assume one of three
different types of role orientations: a coproduction orientation, a
passive orientation, or an antiauthoritarian orientation.
A coproduction orientation is the belief that the follower role
involves actively engaging with leaders by relaying important
information, identifying and solving problems, and even
constructively challenging the leader when appropriate (Carsten
et al., 2010). These individuals believe that leadership is enhanced
by the engagement of followers, and that followers have something
valuable to contribute to the leadership process. With regard to the
case, this type of follower is exemplified by the individuals who
confronted Sam’s indiscretions and challenged his decisions. While
there is undoubtedly an element of risk that accompanies this type
of challenge and confrontation, these followers believe that it is their
job to challenge leaders when they feel that the leader is headed
down the wrong path, or making decisions that could potentially
174 MELISSA K. CARSTEN
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
hurt the organization (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012). They embrace
the opportunity to get involved and see their engagement with
the leader as a chance to help advance the objectives of the
organization. These followers can have a positive impact on the
organization because they think critically about the mission of
the organization and evaluate the means through which the
organization works to achieve it.
Conversely, a passive follower role orientation is characterized
by the belief that leaders are more knowledgeable, powerful, and
proficient than followers (Baker, 2007; Carsten et al., 2010), and
that followers should remain silent and deferent as a result of their
subordinate status (Carsten et al., 2010). These individuals believe
that the leader’s power should not be challenged and that the leader
has ultimate discretion to make decisions, even hurtful ones, because
they have earned it. In the case of Sam Stokes, the followers who
remained silent, refrained from standing up to him, and followed all
of his directives would be said to have a passive role orientation.
According to Uhl-Bien and Carsten (2007), these followers may be
complicit in unethical behavior initiated by the leader and
contribute to wrongdoing in the workplace because the leader
ordered them to engage in disruptive practices.
The third category is that of the antiauthoritarian follower.
These individuals are considered “non-followers” because they resist
the influence and authority of the leader, and believe that leaders will
use their power to manipulate others. These individuals are not
insubordinate; they will follow directives and fulfill their role
responsibilities, but thwart any influence attempts made by the
leader. Under these circumstances, we have to ask ourselves if the
leader is really leading. Instead, it may be that leaders can only
engage in management when working with individuals who believe
in non-following.
Although not identified in the follower role orientation
literature advanced by Carsten and colleagues, another important
role orientation of followers may be the “leading-up” orientation.
Upward leadership or “leading-up” occurs when a follower with no
formal power or authority engages in leadership behavior with
superiors and inspires others to adopt ideas or initiatives important
to the organization. These individuals believe that they can make a
difference in the organization and help advance the mission.
However, with no formal power or authority, followers must be
very careful when they engage in leading-up. In the case above,
Clara became an influential leader among her peers because the
formal leader was corrupt and not worth following. Although Clara
had no formal power or authority, she saw an important
opportunity to engage others with her vision and support others
through their work processes. Her peers grew to trust her and
A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 175
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
followed voluntarily. There is no doubt that Clara played a role in
retention of the company’s talented employees. She gave the
employees hope and instilled meaning in their work. She led from
the bottom up believing that she could make a difference and feeling
as though she was called to service.
The case above demonstrates the different role orientations
maintained by followers, and how those role orientations may result
in followership behavior. Just as leaders come in many different
forms and demonstrate many different styles, followers also bring
unique perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors to their interactions with
leaders. As we continue to devote energy to understanding multiple
follower role orientations, our hope is that it will ultimately lead to
a better understanding of the leadership process. Leadership is
created through the interactions of leaders and followers working
together to advance the mission of an organization (Shamir, 2007).
As we continue to study and learn about leadership, it is equally
important that we pay close attention to the role of followers and
better understand how they contribute to the leadership process.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. How can people lead without formal power and
authority? What skills are required to be an effective
“bottom-up” leader?
2. Which of the follower role orientations discussed in the
commentary were most/least beneficial for the staff of
Sam Stokes? Which follower role orientations do you
believe would be most/least beneficial in your own
organization? Why? Which follower role orientations do
you believe are most/least beneficial to organizations in
general? Why?
3. What types of leaders would be best working with
followers who have a coproduction orientation? How
about a passive or antiauthoritarian orientation? Which
of these follower orientations do you believe would work
best with Sam Stokes?
4. What other follower role orientations might exist? Can
you think about another category of beliefs that people
may hold regarding the follower role?
5. If you worked with a superior like Sam Stokes, how
would you approach him regarding his unethical
behavior? What would be the potential benefits and
drawbacks involved? Why do you believe more people do
not stand up to unethical leaders?
176 MELISSA K. CARSTEN
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
References
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
14(1), 50�60. doi:10.1177/0002831207304343
Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Follower beliefs in the co-production of
leadership: Examining upward communication and the moderating role of context.
Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie [Journal of Psychology], 220(4), 210�220. doi:10.1027/
2151-2604/a000115
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(3), 543�562. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.015
Parker, S. (2000). From passive to proactive motivation: The importance of flexible
role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 49(3), 447�469. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00025
Parker, S. K. (2007). That is my job: How employees’ role orientation affects their job
performance. Human Relations, 60(3), 403�434. doi:10.1177/0018726707076684
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. (1997). “That’s not my job”: Developing
flexible employee work orientations. Academy of Management Journal, 40(4),
899�929. doi:10.2307/256952
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in
the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),
Follower-centered perspectives on leadership. A tribute to the memory of James R.
Meindl (pp. ix�xxxix). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Carsten, M. K. (2007). Being ethical when the boss is not.
Organizational Dynamics, 36, 187�201. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.03.006
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.
doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.007
A Tale of Corrupt Power and Unethical Leadership 177
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
This page intentionally left blank
EBSCOhost – printed on 2/24/2022 5:28 PM via INDIANA WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use
