As scholars move towards examining the relationship between leaders and followers, there is a new emphasis on the impact each role plays on the other in organizational development and change. Northouse (2019) points out “the process of leading requires the process of following. Leaders and followers together create the leadership relationship, and without an understanding of the process of following, our understanding of leadership is incomplete” (Shamir, 2007; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). Together this relationship will dictate how leadership is perceived, and in turn the level of commitment by followers. This shared process will determine how effective leadership is, by highlighting the role followers play and the ability to work together to achieve common goals.
This nurturing process can be implemented in several ways: by providing followers the ability to evaluate leadership behaviors and performance, structuring the organization so that leaders and employees interact and collaborate with each other regularly, and by creating a culture that supports and encourages employee voice, often times referred to as an open-door policy. I will emphasize employee voice as it also pertains and overlaps with the other two.
James R. Detert and Ethan R. Burris describe voice “as the discretionary provision of information intended to improve organizational functioning to someone inside an organization with the perceived authority to act, even though such information may challenge or upset the status quo of the organization or power holders, but is critical to organizational well-being” (Detert et al., 2007). Using this definition, the organizational culture will dictate whether or not these challenges are met openly with the intent to take action, something Detert and Burris refer to as improvement-oriented voice, or whether or not followers are discouraged to speak up either due to fear, job security, or because the organization has a history of not taking action. In other words, followers are more likely to speak up when the potential benefits outweigh the costs (Detert et al., 2007).
One of the underlying factors that play into the follower’s willingness to engage in improvement-oriented voice will be how the organization handles conflict or situational challenges. Organizations that adopt collaborating conflict styles emphasize that “all parties have a vested interest in the outcome, and they have the potential to resolve conflict in a way that satisfies all major interests” (Folger, Poole, and Stutman, 2018). This involves an emphasis on constructive results and actions, mutual benefits, and the ability to empower followers in this integrative process. Collaborating promotes a sense of equality and trust, and the flexibility of both parties to reach common goals. This idea is further posited by Kelley, “in his efforts to give followership equal billing to leadership, Kelley examined those aspects of followers that account for exemplary followership” (Northouse, 2019). Kelley stresses the important role that followers play and the influence they have on organizational outcomes, by posing exemplary followers as engaged, positive, and offering constructive feedback (Northouse, 2019).
While organizations may claim to have open-door policies, its effectiveness is decided when both parties validate and legitimize each other’s role within the organization. According to Northouse (2019) “being engaged, active, and challenging are identifying characteristics of effective followers. But followers who challenge the leader can also help to make an organization run more effectively and successfully.” Since followers are the ones doing the work, leaders who pay attention to issues they might not be aware of, had not considered, or challenge organizational status quo will gain credibility amongst followers which will alter motivation, behavior, and perceived validity of leaders.
At the hotel I worked for, voicing concerns was often times difficult due to the fast-paced environment, and the continuous hours the operation ran. In an attempt to bridge the gap between follower and leader the organization decided that each team would elect a representative to be added to the agenda of weekly meetings with upper management. Although not everyone was on board with this process, the majority of staff was encouraged by this new strategy. Over time, the exercise proved to be influential in promoting conversations around resources needed, wages, tip-out procedures in the bar and restaurant, staffing and shift times, training effectiveness, and manager support. The exercise also led to anonymous leadership assessment, which had never been done before.
While adopting open-door policies between leaders and followers may sound good in theory, implementing this strategy in a way that encourages employee feedback requires the willingness for both parties to engage in constructive conflict resolution, the ability to take action, and the continuous process of redefining mutual goals. Giving equal weight to both followers and leaders in their ability to effect change and promote organizational development will impact numerous factors that impact the bottom line, such as employee satisfaction and retention, performance, engagement, and commitment to organizational goals.
References:
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-884. https://www-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/psycinfo/docview/621935958/37E11CE2462F44C4PQ/16?accountid=13158
Folger, Joseph P., Marshall Scott Poole, & Randall K. Stutman. (2018) Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. 8th Edition. New York: Routledge.
Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and Practice. 8th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Jazmen Wilder says
Valerie, I enjoyed your post and your thoughts on leadership and open-door policies within organizations. I agree that although the organization or leader may claim to have an open-door policy, the work environment may prevent the followers from taking full advantage of the policy. Leadership professionals are divided on the effectiveness of open-door policies, some see this as a form of unrestricted communication, while others view this as a form of ‘lazy’ leadership (Detert, 2010).
I’ve worked for companies that utilized both methods; in one organization the line of communication was formal and structured, any concerns or complaints had to go through the appropriate channels. In the other organization, I was under a leader who had a high need for affiliation (nAff), while this was great in one respect, this need to be liked was not constructive for effective leadership.
Detert, James R., Burris Ethan R., Harrison, David A. (2010). Good Communication Goes Beyond Open FDoor Policies. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2010/05/good-communication-goes-beyond