Evaluation Of A Paradigm Presentation Dissertation Research Summary

THE EVALUATION OF A PARADIGM: THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES AND ATTRIBUTES ON HOTEL CUSTOMER-CONTACT EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTION

Dissertation Committee Dr. Keith Grant-Mentor Dr Lisa Barrow-Committee Member Dr. Abdul Kaissi-Committee Member

All material contained in this presentation is taken from The Evaluation of a Paradigm: the Critical Examination of the Influence of Followership Styles and Courageous Follower Attributes on Hotel Customer-Contact Employee Job Satisfaction by Terry Fobbs, PhD, 2010, All rights reserved. Dissertation Research SummaryTHE EVALUATION OF A PARADIGM: THE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP STYLES AND COURAGEOUS FOLLOWER ATTRIBUTES ON HOTEL CUSTOMER-CONTACT EMPLOYEE JOB SATISFACTIONBy Terry Fobbs, PhD Capella University

Purpose of the Study

This study tested the hypothesis that hotel customer contact employees who perceive they are exemplary followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) [Independent Variable] will exhibit greater level of courageous follower attributes (Dixon, 2003) [Dependent Variable] and display greater levels of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997) [Dependent Variable] than those employees who perceive themselves to be Passive Followers, Conformist Followers, Alienated Followers or, Pragmatic Followers (Kelley, 1992, 2008) [Independent Variables.2 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Research Questions

Phase 1: Research Question: (1) Are The Followership Profile (TFP) measured indicators of followership behavior the same for all followership styles of hotel customer contact employees?Phase 2: Research Question: (2) What is the correlation between Exemplary, Pragmatic, Alienated, Conformist and Passive followership styles and hotel first line customer contact employee job satisfaction?

3 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Research Design

The research was a two phase quantitative study using an exploratory factorial design (Yang, 2005) which included the use of factorial Kruskal-Wallis test, linear regression (Holton III & Burnett, 2005) which included a correlational analysis, and a multiple analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) that the effect of the independent variable(s) was examined after controlling for the effect of other variables that are predicted to be related to the dependent variable (Bates, 2005, p.135). In this instance, there was testing for any effects of demographic data on the dependent variables of job satisfaction.

4 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Population Sample and Setting

The sample consisted of all first line customer contact hotel employee from al eleven locations of a small luxury hotel chain in the Columbia Basin of British Columbia with a total population of 190 employees. The total target population was 142 customer-contact employees and the tested population was 120 customer-contact employees. The tested population was of sufficient size to attain necessary statistical power to significantly reduce the possibility of Type II errors.

The target population of these employees was from the following areas: guest services, night auditors, catering, corporate customer contact employees, concierge, front desk ,bellhop, housekeeping, and, reservations. The sample population was drawn from all three shifts of employees from all corporate properties. The rationale behind this was, while obtaining a stratified random sample of one shift of employees creating a homogenous sub-population, could have been accomplished, the small size of the target population would have resulted in having a sample population of insufficient size without sufficient statistical power thus significantly increasing the possibility of Type II errors. 5 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Demographics

The following demographics of the target population were examined and used as control variables: Gender, Age, Education and job Description. 33 men and 87 women participated in the study or 27.5 percent and 72.5 percent of the target population respectively. The age of the participants ranged from 16 to 55 and older. 43 participants in the age range of 31-44 years or 35.8 percent formed the largest block of participants whereas the 15 participants in the age range of 55 and older or 10.8 percent formed the smallest block of participants.

In the Education demographic, 108 participants or 90 percent were nearly evenly divided between being high graduates, having some college or being college graduates either high school.

6 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Demographics

Customer-contact employees within the hotel-resort chain fell into eight categories: Guest Services Agent, Room Attendant, Bellman, Night Auditor, Catering Coordinator, Guest Services Manager, Assistant Manager, and Corporate Office Staff. It was noted that these designations may not the same ones used in a hotel chain in the United States such as Room Attendant, where the designation of Housekeeping would be used or Bellman, regardless of the employees gender, where the gender neutral designation of bellhop would be used. 36 Guest Services Agents and 55 Room Attendants formed the largest block of research participants comprising 30 and 55 percent of the study participants respectively with 1 Bellman and 1 Assistant Manager comprising the smallest number of study participants, with percentages of 0.8 percent each.

7 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Data Collection

In order to examine the hypotheses outlined in this study, data was collected, using group administration of the survey instruments consisting of followership styles based on the participant scores designating them as Exemplary Followers, Conformist Followers, Alienated Followers, Pragmatist Followers and Passive Followers using The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992).

The hypotheses also required that data be collected reflecting participant scores reflecting the level of Courageous Follower Attributes, specifically the attributes of courage to assume responsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave/display moral action using The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003). Finally data was collected pertaining to employee job satisfaction using participant responses to the Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1997).

8 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Instrumentation

Courageous Follower attributes was measured using the Follower Profile (TFP) Questionnaire (Dixon, 2003). The instrument is a 56 item survey based on a five point forced choice self rated 5-point Likert scale consisting of the responses of 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat agree), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree) (Dixon, 2003, p. 42) and an ordinal level of measurement. Demographic data consisting 20 additional items covering the factors of age, gender, education and occupation that served as control variables.Statistical reliability and validity was established by previous research

9 Terry Fobbs, 2010

InstrumentationFollowership style was be measured using the Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). The instrument was a modified 20 item survey based on a forced choice self rated six-point Likert scale consisting of the responses at the points of 0 (Never), 1, (Once in a While), 2( Sometimes), 3 (Occasionally), 4 (Often), 5 (Almost Always and 6 (Always) and an ordinal level of measurement. Statistical reliability and validity was established by previous research.

10 Terry Fobbs, 2010

InstrumentationJob Satisfaction was measured using the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) (Spector, 1997). The JSS is a 36 item, self reporting survey with a 6 point Likert scale that ranges from 1 (disagrees very much), 2 (disagrees moderately, 3 (disagrees slightly), 4 (agrees slightly), 5 (agrees moderately) (to) 6 (agrees very much) (Spector, 1997 ,pp. 75-76). Statistical reliability and validity was established by previous research.


Descriptive Statistics Table 1


Characteristic

N

%

Gender

Male

33

27.5

Female

87

72.5

Age

16-25 years

28

23.3

26-30 years

17

14.2

31-44 years

43

35.8

45-54 years

19

15.8

55 years and older

13

10.8

Education

Not a High School/Secondary School Graduate

9

7.5

High School/Secondary School Graduate

35

29.2

Some College

36

30.0

College Graduate

37

30.8

Some Graduate work and beyond

3

2.5

Job Description

Guest Services Agent

36

30.0

Room Attendant

55

45.8

Bellman

1

0.8

Night Auditor

13

10.8

Catering Coordinator

2

1.7

Guest Services Manager

7

5.8

Assistant Manager

1

0.8

Corporate Office Staff

5

4.2

Descriptive Statistics Followership Profile and Style-Table 2


Characteristic

The FollowerProfile (Courage to:)

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

St. Dev.

Assume responsibility

63

117

99.34

11.18

Serve

22

60

48.18

7.79

Challenge

16

41

33.72

4.95

Participate in Transformation

22

42

35.93

4.03

Leave (Take Moral Action)

40

72

59.22

6.19

The Followership Style

Components:

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

St. Dev.

Independent thinking

11.00

60.00

35.22

10.55

Active engagement

21.00

60.00

45.77

9.09

Classification:

N

%

Exemplary

79

65.8

Pragmatic

18

15.0

Conformist

14

11.7

Alienated

0

0.0

Passive

8

6.7

Unclassified

1

0.8

Descriptive Statistics Job Satisfaction Survey Responses-Table 3


Characteristic

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

St. Dev.

Pay

-5

7

1.18

2.11

Promotion

-1

15

7.93

3.57

Supervision

-3

6

0.68

1.74

Fringe Benefits

-5

8

1.39

2.26

Contingent Rewards

-17

0

-7.58

3.23

Operating Conditions

-17

1

-8.21

3.15

Co-workers

-5

8

1.84

2.14

Nature of work

4

15

10.64

1.95

Communications

-14

-2

-8.48

2.46

Hypotheses-Phase 1

15

Hypotheses using the Kruskal-Wallis test:

Null Hypothesis 1: There is no difference in the distribution of courage to assume responsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for Exemplary versus Pragmatic versus Alienated versus Conformist versus Passive followership styles of hotel customer contact employees.

Alternate Hypothesis 1: There is a difference in the distribution of courage to assume responsibility, courage to challenge, courage to serve, courage to participate in transformation and courage to leave followership behaviors for Exemplary versus Pragmatic versus Alienated versus Conformist versus Passive followership styles of hotel customer contact employees. Terry Fobbs, 2010

Hypotheses-Phase 1-Table 4


Characteristic

Followership style

Mean Rank

Chi-Square

df

p-value

Assume responsibility

Exemplary

71.75

28.77

3

0.000

Pragmatic

36.38

Conformist

43.40

Passive

25.25

Serve

Exemplary

68.82

17.15

3

0.001

Pragmatic

41.32

Conformist

50.30

Passive

30.75

Challenge

Exemplary

70.10

22.58

3

0.000

Pragmatic

30.56

Conformist

46.40

Passive

28.31

Participate in Transformation

Exemplary

70.99

31.00

3

0.000

Pragmatic

27.53

Conformist

56.87

Passive

26.38

Leave (Take Moral Action)

Exemplary

70.72

25.04

3

0.000

Pragmatic

35.74

Conformist

48.60

Passive

27.13

Hypotheses-Phase 2

Hypotheses tested using correlation and multiple analyses of co-variance (MANCOVA)

MANCOVA Analysis: DDV= demographic data as control variablesNull Hypothesis predicts that DDV will not interact with hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction variables.Alternate Hypothesis: predicts that DDV will interact with hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction variablesCorrelation AnalysisNull Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between exemplary followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 2: There is a correlation between exemplary followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.


Hypotheses-Phase 2 Table 5 MANCOVA MultivariateTests {c}

a Exact statisticb The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.c Design: Intercept+follower_type+D1+D2+D3+D4


Effect

Value

F

Hypothesis df

Error df

Sig.

Intercept

Pillai's Trace

.865

64.860(a)

9.000

91.000

.000

Wilks' Lambda

.135

64.860(a)

9.000

91.000

.000

Hotelling's Trace

6.415

64.860(a)

9.000

91.000

.000

Roy's Largest Root

6.415

64.860(a)

9.000

91.000

.000

Followership style

Pillai's Trace

.204

.754

27.000

279.000

.809

Wilks' Lambda

.808

.748

27.000

266.409

.815

Hotelling's Trace

.223

.742

27.000

269.000

.822

Roy's Largest Root

.115

1.185(b)

9.000

93.000

.314

Gender

Pillai's Trace

.104

1.177(a)

9.000

91.000

.319

Wilks' Lambda

.896

1.177(a)

9.000

91.000

.319

Hotelling's Trace

.116

1.177(a)

9.000

91.000

.319

Roy's Largest Root

.116

1.177(a)

9.000

91.000

.319

Age

Pillai's Trace

.393

1.139

36.000

376.000

.272

Wilks' Lambda

.652

1.153

36.000

342.756

.258

Hotelling's Trace

.468

1.164

36.000

358.000

.244

Roy's Largest Root

.262

2.741(b)

9.000

94.000

.007

Education

Pillai's Trace

.363

1.042

36.000

376.000

.406

Wilks' Lambda

.674

1.056

36.000

342.756

.387

Hotelling's Trace

.430

1.069

36.000

358.000

.368

Roy's Largest Root

.269

2.808(b)

9.000

94.000

.006

Job Description

Pillai's Trace

.693

1.185

63.000

679.000

.163

Wilks' Lambda

.460

1.218

63.000

518.625

.131

Hotelling's Trace

.879

1.246

63.000

625.000

.103

Roy's Largest Root

.411

4.431(b)

9.000

97.000

.000

Hypotheses-Phase 2 MANCOVA Tests of Between Subjects Effects Table 6a R Squared = .120 (Adjusted R Squared = -.049)b R Squared = .190 (Adjusted R Squared = .034)c R Squared = .088 (Adjusted R Squared = -.087)d R Squared = .179 (Adjusted R Squared = .021)e R Squared = .222 (Adjusted R Squared = .072)f R Squared = .241 (Adjusted R Squared = .096)g R Squared = .166 (Adjusted R Squared = .005)h R Squared = .247 (Adjusted R Squared = .102)i R Squared = .280 (Adjusted R Squared = .142)


Hypotheses-Phase 2 Table 7 Pair-wise Comparisons

20

Terry Fobbs, 2010

Based on estimated marginal means* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).

Correlational Analysis

Hypothesis 4 could not be tested because none of the respondents to the survey attained scores which classify them as having an alienated followership type. For the remaining hypotheses, Table 8 provides the correlation analyses results.Null Hypothesis 2: There is no correlation between exemplary followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 2: There is a correlation between exemplary followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction. Null Hypothesis 3: There is no correlation between pragmatic followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 3: There is a correlation between pragmatic followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.


Correlational Analysis Cont

Null Hypothesis 4: There is no correlation between alienated followership style hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 4: There is a correlation between alienated followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Null Hypothesis 5: There is no correlation between conformist followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.Alternate Hypothesis 5: There is a correlation between conformist followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction. Null Hypothesis 6: There is no correlation between passive followership style and hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction. Alternate Hypothesis 6: There is a correlation between passive followership style and f hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.


Correlational Analysis Results Table 8

The correlations analysis, as shown in Table 8, confirms the above results from the MANCOVA, which indicates statistically non-significant relationship between job satisfaction and the followership styles except in the case of nature of work. Thus the null hypothesis is not rejected in all of hypotheses 2 thru 6 except in the case of satisfaction with the nature of work. 23 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Exemplary

Pragmatic

Conformist

Passive

Pay

0.13

-0.04

-0.09

-0.09

Promotion

0.15

-0.07

-0.05

-0.11

Supervision

0.06

-0.05

-0.08

0.05

Fringe Benefits

0.07

0.05

-0.14

0.01

Contingent Rewards

0.02

0.04

-0.11

0.01

Operating Conditions

0.01

0.03

-0.09

0.04

Co-workers

0.14

-0.01

-0.13

-0.01

Nature of work

0.18*

-0.01

0.00

-0.31*

Communications

-0.03

0.01

0.14

-0.07

Limitations of the Study

The cultural background of the customer contact employees remained a limitation. The setting was an international one with many of the respondents being from the Philippines or are native Canadians. While Canada is closely aligned culturally to the United States, there are some differences. These differences could have manifested itself in the way the participants responded to the Follower Profile and the Followership Questionnaire. Hofstede (1980) in his research addressed how the differences in national cultures have a profound effect on the way employees perceive management practices and how American management theory or in this case Followership Theory is applied and examined. Nationality was not a demographic variable and a statistical analysis could have been conducted to determine if there was any influence on the variables of Courageous Follower behavior or followership style. Because this was in an international environment, the findings of the study may not be generalized to other populations or even customercontact employee populations in hotels located in the United States24 Terry Fobbs, 2010


Although there was not widespread use of The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003) and Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) instruments involved in this study, (instrument validity and reliability notwithstanding), like the Pratt (2004) study, the risk of hidden tautologies in the tested hypotheses, the modifications to the instruments and simplified straightforward analysis processes and clear identification of the variables ensured there was no meaningless correlational analysis due to variable ambiguity and complexity.



Another limitation was the use of zeros in the scoring of the Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992). While the use of zero provided a more meaningful score in calculating followership style, it created problems if examining the constructs of Independent Critical Thinking and Active Engagement separately. One solution would be to use a seven point Likert scale number 1 to 7 versus 0 to 6, modify the scoring criteria for each followership style according and still be in a position to have valid numbers to establish statistical relationships between independent and dependent variables.



The self-reporting aspects of the Followership Questionnaire and The Followership Profile remained a significant limitation to the study. Due to the high numbers of respondents who self-reported as exemplary followers and that each reported followership style demonstrated Courageous Follower behaviors to some varying degree demonstrated that respondents answered questions in way where they perceive they are in a more favorable light creating possible over reporting as exemplary followers for example. Further, as the data was gathered at one session at each location versus data being gathered over time in a longitudinal study, the stability of the observed empirical relationships cannot be firmly concluded as a replication of the study at the same locations may reveal entirely different results.


Implications for Future Research

One possibility is replicating the study at four or five geographically dispersed locations of a major luxury hotel chain in the United States using a stratified random sample of all customer contact employee s of one shift, using on-site group administration for data collection. Demographic data collected would include nationality of the respondents to determine the effect of this variable on job satisfaction. A comparative analysis could then be conducted wit the findings of this study to determine differences in results and conclusions. The second possibility of future research is to examine the influence of demographics to include nationality on followership style and the level of Courageous Follower attributes with demographics being the independent variables and followership style and Courageous Follower attributes being dependent variables. This type of study could be conducted in a variety of settings and populations and not limited to using hotel customer-contact employees.



The third possibility for future research is to examine the influence of demographics to include nationality on the level of the followership style constructs of independent critical thinking and active engagement, with demographics being the independent variables and independent critical thinking and active engagement being the dependent variables. The fourth possibility is to replicate the other possibilities to include this study in a variety of international environments to determine the influence of different nationalities in their home environment have on followership style, Courageous follower attributes and customer contact employee job satisfaction.



In all of these future research possibilities, the Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) would have to further modified and scoring for the five followership styles changed as depicted in Slide 31 in order to ensure a valid statistical relationship between variables, where the use of the number zero in a response would create difficulty in data analysis and the determination of statistical relationships between variables.


Implications for Future Research Survey Key1= Never- Never is defined as zero (0) percent of the time.2 = Once in a While- Once in a while is defined as 1-29 percent of the time.3 = Sometimes- Sometimes is defined as 30-59 percent of the time.4 = Occasionally- Occasionally is defined as 60-79 percent of the time.5 =Often- Often is defined as 80-89 percent of the time.6 =Almost Always- Almost Always is defined as 90-99 percent of the time.7 =Always- Always is defined as 100 percent of the timeScoring Criteria-The Followership Questionnaire1. Exemplary Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 42 to 70 and Active Engagement Scores of 51 to 702. Pragmatist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 30 to 50 and Active Engagement Scores of 30 to 503. Conformist Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 10 to 40 and Active Engagement Scores of 51 to 70 444. Alienated Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 41 to 70 and Active Engagement Scores of 10 to 295. Passive Followers equal Independent Critical Thinking scores of 10 to 40 and Active Engagement Scores of 10 to 2931 Terry Fobbs, 2010

Implications for Future ResearchA fourth possibility for future research centers around the examination of the influence of affective and cognitive components of followership Lord, 2008; Townsend and Gebhardt, 2003) on the level of organizational commitment.A final possibility would be a variation of the fourth, where a correlational study could be conducted to determine how followership style influences the level of organizational commitment, where followership style is the independent variable and organizational commitment is the dependent variable. 32

Terry Fobbs, 2010

Recommendations for Practice

Implementation of a followership curriculum in university business schools.Use of Critical Reflection in leader-follower interactionsUse of change management to develop have a positive followership organizational culture that embraces both Transformational Leadership and Exemplary Followership


Conclusion

This study provided an in-depth view of how followership style and Courageous attributes influences job satisfaction from the viewpoint of the follower on hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction.

This study was conducted in an international setting using environment using The Followership Questionnaire (Kelley, 1992) and The Follower Profile (Dixon, 2003).

The literature has shown that in this research setting has shown that little to no research has been conducted that addresses the influence of followership style and Courageous Follower attributes on organizational effectiveness, employee job satisfaction, employee commitment and organizational performance (Chaleff, 2003, Kelley, 1992, 2008; Pack, 2001) and specifically, the influence of followership style (Kelley1992) and Courageous Follower Attributes (Chaleff, 2003,: Dixon, 2003) on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.


Conclusion

This study added to the body of knowledge by demonstrating how the followership styles and Courageous Follower attributes of hotel customer contact employees influence their job satisfaction and the relationship between their followership style and the level of Courageous Follower attributes. .Addressing this gap in knowledge will assist organizations in the service industry and the hotel industry in particular to evaluate the full effectiveness of new and established programs to improve employee job satisfaction, organizational commitment and assist in the development of employees and leaders to develop those behavioral attributes to become exemplary followers.

Additionally, this study provided key insights into the enhancement of hotel customer contact employee job satisfaction through an understanding of the influence of the employees followership style and Courageous Follower behavioral attributes and providing an avenue of improving organizational climate and culture, employee and leadership development and ultimately improving overall customer service in this important sector of the service industry.


ReferencesBates, R.A. (2005). Multivariate research methods, In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 115-141). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders 2e. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Dixon, E. N. (2003). An exploration of the relationship of organizational level and measures of follower behaviors Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3108611)Fobbs,T. (2010). The evaluation of a paradigm: The critical examination of the influence of followership styles and courageous follower attributes on hotel customer-contact employee job satisfaction.Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States -- Minnesota. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3403225) Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad? [Electronic version] Organizational Dynamics, 9(1), 42-63. Retrieved January 30, 2006, from EBSCO Host Database.Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday.Kelley, R. E. (2008). Rethinking followership, In R.E. Riggio, I. Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lord, R.G. (2008). Followers cognitive and affective structures and leadership processes In R.E. Riggio, I.Chaleff and J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders and organization (pp. 255-266). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pack, J. D. (2001). Followership styles: Collaborative leadership among professional nurses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved March 9, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3136145)Pratt, Z. L. (2004). An investigation of the relationships between external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, organizational culture, and performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3158993)Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Townsend, P., & Gebhardt, J. (2003). The leadership-teamship-followership continuum [Electronic version]. Leader to Leader, (29), 18-21. Retrieved April 2, 2009, from Business Source Complete database.Yang, B. (2005). Factor analysis methods, In R.A. Swanson and E. F. Holton III (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 181-199). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.36

Notice

All material contained in this presentation is copyrighted by the author. Reproduction of this material without written permission of the author is prohibited. The author may be contacted via email or telephonically for permissions regarding use and reproduction of this [email protected] or at 517.256.674036

. In order to accomplish this, a followership curriculum would need to be developed and taught in business schools and organizational training sessions as something that is not negative concept, but is a positive partner to leadership. These courses and training sessions could be based on the successful workshops conducted by Ira Chaleff and Dr. Eugene Dixon. This effort could be made more effective by using the principles of critical reflection as outlined by Brookfield (1995), where the leader becomes a coach, mentor and power sharer, while knowing and understanding he needs and value of the followers. The glide path for leaders would be to combine the principles of Transformational leadership to not only facilitate followers to be Transformational Leaders and exemplary followers, but for the leaders to learn how to become exemplary followers themselves through the critical reflective process.. To initiate this learning in organizations, a change management process would have to be instituted, as most people still view followership in a negative light and buy-in to this paradigm will be essential. The first step is to conduct an organizational culture survey in conjunction with a job satisfaction and organizational communication survey. The results of these surveys will provide valuable information of where the problem areas are that will create road blocks in bringing out the necessary change and behavior modification required at all levels of the organization in order to make this effort successful. A key point to remember is that both Exemplary Followership and Transformational Leadership have a strong moral component and an outward selfless focus to serve others rather than self and working toward a common organizational purpose. As this type of organizational change will not be an overnight process, it is recommended that organizations have regular employee town hall style meetings where the principles of critical reflection are used to obtain feedback to determine whether organizational learning and acceptance of followership is taking place and action plans can be developed and followed up on to remedy shortcomings in the process.