The Influence of Followership on Organizational Identification
and the Mitigating Effect of Communication Climate
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Corporate Communication
Hyunsu Lee
Thesis supervisor: Pernill van der Rijt
27th June 2014
Abstract
Today’s workplaces are in need of employees who are proactively engaged in leadership
process and bring fresh ideas to organizations. With devolution from leaders to followers, the
importance of followership has been widely acknowledged by organizations. The study aims
to investigate to what extent does followership influence on organizational identification
directed by communication climate and how does network centrality influence the
relationship between followership and communication climate. Kelley’s (1992) research
emphasizes the proactive role of followers and defines its behavioral characteristics, which
form effective followers; active engagement and independent critical thinking. The two
dimensions of effective followers are associated with organizational identification, which is
partially mediated by communication climate. Network centrality is positively related with
communication climate while the interaction effect of followership and network centrality on
perceived communication was not statistically significant. The paper suggests new insights on
organizational management and provides a foundation for future research.
Keywords: Followership, active engagement, communication climate, organizational
identification, network centrality.
The influence Followership in Organizations
Recently, we have observed an increasing number of organizations focusing on followership
of individual employees. Workplaces are in need of employees who are proactively engaged
in solving corporate issues regardless of roles or positions (Howell & Shamir, 2005).
Organizations seek for employees who are willing to bring fresh ideas, suggest new
perspectives to organizations and consider the proactivity of employees as essential assets for
organization to move forward (Shamir, 2007). While leadership theories have been caught
attention in past years, the academic and practical focus on leaders have been gradually
shifted to the followers, as well as to the influence of followers and its outcomes in
organizations. Academic and practical focus on leaders have been gradually shifted to its
followers, employees in organizations, and how effective followers have impact on
organizations.
In precious leadership studies, researchers generally concentrated on leaders and the
impact that these leaders have on their subordinates (Collinson, 2006). Employees have been
often considered as recipients of the leader's influence, rather following leaders’ decisions to
assist leader’s visions (Heller & Til, 1982). Followership has been valued as capability of
employees to support leaders and effectively follow the ordered instructions to maximize
efficiency of organizations (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson & Morris, 2006). In previous
research, Followership has been defined as contribution of employees to follow the leaders’
decisions and pursue directions designed by leaders (McClosky, Hoffmann & O'Hara, 1960).
However, there has been observed a shift of the perspective in followership recently.
A number of studies shed a light on new definition of followership such that followers should
be more understood as one type of organizational role and must be viewed as partners of
leaders (Potter, Rosenbach & Pittman, 1996). The sweeping view of organizational
mechanism suggests that the impact of followers becomes the source of social influence on
-1-
leaders and organizations (Oc & Bashshur, 2013). It emphasizes the followers’ beliefs and
thoughts as antecedents playing integral part of the leadership process. Leadership is
operationalized as perceptions (Bligh & Schyns, 2007).
The shift of view is based on realization of leadership as a process, which is created by
the perception of followers and their social interaction with people in organizations (Fairhurst
& Uhl-Bien, 2012). Leadership can be exerted only when there are followers and following
behaviors to support the leadership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014), as there is no
leader without followers. Since followership and following behaviors of followers are the
critical antecedent to complete leadership process (Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012; Shamir, 2007),
understanding of followership needs to be preceded to understand leadership.
The significance of followership is likely to have positive influence on organizational
outcomes. New concept of followership suggests that followers are more seen as cocontributors by taking an active and participative role in organizations (Baker & Gerlowski,
2007). According to Kelley (1992), effective followers are likely to be more active and
engaged in organizational matters and more efficient in critical thinking. Employees with high
level of followership are likely to be more proactive in committing themselves to the
organization, its missions and the people in organizations (Kelley, 1988). Moreover, effective
followers are considered to manage themselves and maintain their competence with knowing
where they put their effort. Effective followers maintain interdependent relationship with
leaders to achieve communal purposes (Rost, 1993).
Organizational identification refers to the degree to which individual employees put
importance on their organizations (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000; Efraty & Wolfe, 1988).
Effective followers are more likely to identify themselves as a part of an organization and feel
much belongingness due to their proactivity exerted in organizations. Looking across the
literature on organizational identification, followership may encourage employees to identify
-2-
themselves organizations. Organizational identification is one form of social identification,
which is defined as individuals’ membership to a particular organization (Mael & Tetrick,
1992). Effective followers tend to be highly involved in the job and commit themselves to the
organizations they belong. As job involvement and organizational commitment are strongly
correlated with organizational identification (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), the proactive
behavior characteristics of effective followers will be strongly related to high organizational
identification. Previous research shows strong organizational identification is highly likely to
lead employees to form positive attitudes towards the organization (Dutton, Dukerich &
Harquail, 1994), to be satisfied with their jobs more and do extra more work (Riketta & van
Dick, 2005). Due to these benefits for organization, the corporate interest in organizational
identification (van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher & Christ, 2004) and followership as it
promotes organizational identification.
Furthermore, employees with high level of followership may involve communicating
with their colleagues more frequently to make critical remarks and to collaborate in order to
have tasks successfully done. Proactive behavior characteristics may encourage them to
experience a more empowering communication climate (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson &
Morris, 2006). Also employees who make creative critiques are often seen as whom are
helpful for the team and organization (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), which enable them have
more opportunity to have a say. When employees feel empowered and accepted with their
opinions, it may encourage followers to be more participative in leadership processes and
tasks (Collinson, 2006), which could lead to high self-identification towards the organizations.
Previous research argues that communication plays an increasingly vital role to encourage
employees to be more dedicated (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2010) and involved in the
organizations (Shadur, Kienzle & Rodwell, 1999). Participative communication climate is
suggested to influence organizational identification of employees (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel,
-3-
2001). The literature review suggests that communication climate within organizations is
likely to play important role in explaining the influence of followership on organizational
outcomes.
The employees with followership behaviors can benefit when they obtaining larger
network with higher network centrality in organizations (Lee & Tsang, 2001). Interpersonal
communication and interaction may lead employees to be positioned of the center of the
network. Effective followers are often engaged in active social interaction. The behavioral
characteristics of effective followers influence them to be proactive in their network in
organizations and high network centrality of individual employee has is more likely to lead
higher chances of identifying themselves with organizations (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel,
2001). Hence, employees’ network centrality in organizations may become a factor to
influence the degree organizational identification (Jones & Volpe, 2011).
Moreover, the current study argues that network centrality may influence the
relationship of followership with organizational identification. Network centrality refers to the
degree of importance put on individuals within a certain network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994;
Tsai, 2000). Network centrality may affect employees with effective followership
characteristics to be more participative and open to interpersonal communication. Employees
will feel more taken seriously when they are positioned to be in the center of the network
(Carrière & Bourque, 2009). Proactive followers are often engaged in active social interaction.
Active engagement behavior of employees may influence them to be proactive in
communication, which possibly influences employees’ perception of communication climate.
Independent critical thinking behavior of employees can enhance their perception of the
communication climate due to the experience that their words are more accepted and
-4-
supported within organizations (Jones & Volpe, 2011). Therefore, network centrality may
have an interaction effect on the influence of followership over organizational communication
climate.
The current study argues that followers’ behaviors affect the communication climate
and organizational identification. It aims to contribute to develop validity of followership
scale by looking at the each dimension of followership separately and also to examine to what
extent followership behaviour has influence on organizational outcomes. There is a little
amount of research carried out into followership (Crossman & Crossman, 2011), especially on
how different behavioral characteristic of followership influence followers to perceive
communication climate in organizations and how much they identify themselves to the
organizations.
The suggested relationship of followership can direct organizational process in order to
achieve successful management. It has been argued that the organizational identification
influences employees affective and performance responses (Efraty & Wolfe, 1988). Research
shows that organizational identification positively predicts affective response of employees
such as job satisfaction and performance response such as task involvement and effort
investment. Organizational identification influences satisfaction and commitment to
organizations, which leads to higher effectiveness of the organization (Albert et al., 2000;
Ashforth and Mael, 1989). The academic and corporate interests of followership lead to the
following research question for the present study:
To what extent does network centrality influence the relationship between followership
and communication climate and what effect does the communication climate has on
organizational identification?
-5-
Followership
Followership has been recently gained attention in many organizations such that
understanding individual employees’ characteristics and utilizing the behavioral propensity
accordingly may enhance organizational outcomes (Crossman & Crossman, 2011).
Corporates have been showing strong interest for additional empirical research of
followership to demonstrate its effect (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, 2005).
For the current study, followership and behavioral characteristics need to be identified
beforehand. In previous studies, followership was often recognized as a property of the
leadership process (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). However ‘the romance of leadership’
theory has proposed that leadership is significantly affected by the way followers construct
their understanding of the leader in terms of their interpretation of personality, behaviors and
effectiveness (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985).
Zaleznik (1965) conducted one of the first followership research and identified
individual employees as followers who play key roles to support organizations to perform
well. The types of followers were divided into four groups based on behavioral characteristic
dimensions. Zaleznik examined followers’ level of dominance and activity. The first
‘dominance’ dimension explains the range of how much employees want to control the
superiors or want to be controlled. The second ‘activity’ dimension illustrates how much
employees are willing to initiate first. Based on the two dimensions, followers’ characteristics
were identified as impulsive, compulsive, masochistic and withdrawn. Impulsive followers
are often appeared as rebellious, prefer leading rather than being led. Compulsive followers
tend to be predominant to their colleagues and leaders, however they feel uncomfortable for
themselves by their compulsive behaviors at the same time. The masochistic tend to have
pleasure by being dominated and controlled by the authority figure. Withdrawn followers
does not care about their work and organizations, with putting minimum effort to keep their
-6-
jobs. Although his work has importance as it initiated follower-centered research, however, it
is mainly focused on dysfunctional followers rather than the effective followers (Uhl-Bien,
Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014).
On the other hand, Kelley (1988) was focused on functional follower and examined
behavioral characteristics of effective followership. When other research considers functional
followership as supporting leader role (Shamir, 2007), Kelley’s followership research (1988)
emphasizes the role of individual followers as an essential component to build successful
organizations. The two behavioral dimensions are pointed out as determining behavioral
characteristics of effective followers. The first dimension is activeness how followers fully
participate, engage in organization, and initiate projects without constant supervision. The
second dimension is independent, critical thinking, which describes level of mindfulness,
possibilities to contribute to cultivate organizations and thoughtfulness of accepting new ideas.
Each behavioral dimension represents the corresponding behavioral propensity and is not
mutually exclusive to each other as followers can foster both behavioral tendencies. There
behavioral characteristics can interact with each other, however, it does not say that these
dimensions are proved to be correlated with each other (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). As it
is noted in the research (Kelley, 1998), both dimensions are regarded as not being related to
each other. Kelley defines followers holding these behavioral characteristics as functional
agent rather than subsidiary concept to support leadership. It contradicts with previous
literature framing followership as subordinate concept of leadership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe
& Carsten, 2014).
Along with Kelley (1998), Chaleff (1995) shed a light to followership and redefined
the concept as ‘courageous follower’. In the research, followers hold much more power than it
is understood and the most important quality of followership is to become courageous to use
the given power efficiently. The characteristics of followers were divided into several groups
-7-
with two dimensions, the degree of support that the follower provides to leaders and the
degree of followers’ challenge against the leaders. However the research defines followers
solely in the relationship with leaders and has less focus on the individual characteristics of
followers. Therefore, the present study will adapt Kelley’s (1998) definition of followership
and will examine what extent the two behavioral dimensions of followership affects the
organizational outcomes.
Followership and Organizational identification
Kelley (1992) conceptualizes behavioral characteristics of effective followers, with two
dimensions. The first dimension, active engagement, describes the degree to which employees
actively take part in performing tasks, taking initiative and feeling ownership within
organizations. Employees with high level of active engagement are likely to perceive their
own responsibilities for the job and make more effort to accomplish missions (Rothbard,
2001). Proactive participation in organizational activities is positively linked to organizational
commitment (Salanova, Lorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003).
Employees with high level of followership are more proactive to engage in solving
problems and initiate projects in organizations with independent critical thinking (Kelley,
1992). Effective followers tend to more be committed and contribute to the organization
(Kelley, 1988). Active engagement characteristics of effective followers lead followers to
higher job engagement as well as to organizations (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Also previous
research shows that proactive personality is strongly correlated with commitment to
organizations such that employees who are proactive are likely to show higher commitment to
the organizations (Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009). Organizational identification refers to
the perception of belongingness to organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). It illustrates the
degree to which employees identify themselves with organizations they belong to. In order to
-8-
achieve success, it is appeared to be essential in many organizations to have members feel
strong oneness with organizations (Pratt, 2000). Organizational identification is positively
related to individuals’ affective organizational commitment and job involvement (O'Reilly &
Chatman, 1986). Therefore, it is expected that effective followers are more likely to identify
themselves to the organizations they work for compared to non-effective followers.
On the other hand, the independent critical thinking dimension illustrates the degree to
which followers analyze the information, engage in independent critical thinking, evaluate
situations, and make judgments of the consequences of decision making (Kelley, 1992; Latour
& Rast, 2004). Followers who are engaged in independent critical thinking analyze
information and often provide criticism for innovative and creative moves (Banutu-Gomez,
2004). Evidence shows that critical thinking can generate criticism to improve performance
(Yeo, 2007). Engaging in independent critical thinking may enable employees to get more
aware of problems in their jobs and to notice negative sides of their jobs and organizations
(Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock, 2009). It is argued that active engagement is
positively related to organizational commitment while independent critical thinking is
negatively related to organizational commitment (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock,
2009). As noted earlier, organizational commitment is a strong predictor for organizational
identification (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Therefore, it is expected that active engagement of
followership characteristic is positively associated with organizational identification while
independent critical thinking is negatively associated with organizational identification.
Hypothesis 1a. Active engagement characteristics of followers will have a positive
relationship with organizational identification.
Hypothesis 1b. Independent critical thinking characteristics of followers will have a
negative relationship with organizational identification.
-9-
Followership and Communication climate
It has been argued that employees’ followership strongly influence the individuals’ perception
of communication climate. Followers experiencing more empowered to speak out are more
likely to be proactive and participative, while they become less active when they are forced to
lose their chances to suggest their opinions (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). The
experiences enable followers to formulate their opinions often influence and are influenced by
communication climate in organizations (Falcione, Sussman & Herden, 1987).
According to Putnam and Cheney (1985), communication climate illustrates to ‘the
atmosphere in an organization regarding accepted communication behavior’. Communication
climate is an psychological term how individuals interprets their working environment in
terms of communicative components (Jones & James, 1979; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001).
The communicative elements of organization climate includes level of receptivity of
management, perceived possibility of participating in decision making and trust in
communication and trustworthiness of distributed information within organizations (Smidts,
Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Guzley, 1992). It resides on group level as sum of the shared
individuals’ perceptions and interpretations (Jones & James, 1979). Communication climate
consists of three elements of openness, the degree of receptivity of employees’ opinion being
accepted, trustworthiness, the degree of trustworthiness of disseminated information and
participation in decision-making, the employees’ experiences of their opinion being heard and
taken seriously (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001)
Proactive engagement in exchange of adequate information is a crucial factor of
effective communication (Zhang, Volz & Yen, 2004). Due to the proactivity and willingness
of followership, it may enable active followers to experience strong self-efficacy, engage
social interaction actively and collaborate with colleagues (Salanova, Lorens, Cifre, Martinez,
& Schaufeli, 2003). Employees with willingness to participate are likely to be more actively
- 10 -
engaged in communication, and may change the communication climate in organizations.
Proactive communication is essential to encourage employees to understand goals and share
opinions to take actions. Proactive communicator are of particular significance in
communication within organizations and their suggestions are often well-heard by its
audience (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). Hence, it is more likely that proactive followers
can experience an open and accepting communication climate more often than others.
Openness and participation in decision-making are of important components consisting
positive communication climate (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). Therefore, followers are
more proactively engaged to participate, they may experience more open and participative
communication with their colleagues.
Independent critical thinking characteristic of followership is associated with being
able to think independently and to make constructive critiques. Critical thinking and being
able to make critical remarks implies openness (Buchholz, 2001), which is likely to be an
influential factor for perceptions of communication climate. Independent critical thinkers are
likely to show more critical mentions to the colleagues. When their critical comments is
accepted as constructive suggestions to colleagues, critical thinkers are likely to experience
recognition (Isenberg, 1949). Critical thinkers show more progressive movement, when their
critical suggestion is well-considered in organizations (Kennedy, Fisher & Ennis, 1991), they
may become highly participative in order to achieve progressive plans. Therefore independent
critical thinking employees are likely to perceive communication climate as more positive,
such as more open, participative and trustful, since they are accepted to provide critiques to
organizations. Also, independent critical thinking dimension can contribute to an open
communication climate, a communication climate with room for expressing different opinions.
Key aspect of positive communication climate is openness and participation (Hoevan &
Fransen, 2012). It explains the ground for the independent critical thinking characteristics of
- 11 -
followership as influential factor for perceived communication climate as more open
(McChesney, 1993). Therefore, it is expected active engagement and independent critical
thinking behaviors of followership will be positively related with their perceptions of
communication climate.
Hypothesis 2a. Active engagement characteristic of followership will predict positive
perception of communication climate.
Hypothesis 2b. Independent critical thinking characteristic of followership will predict
positive perception of communication climate.
Furthermore, communication climate affects communication attitude of organization
members and strongly correlates to organizational context (Muchinsky, 1977). According to
Smidts, Pruyn and Riel (2001), an open and participative communication climate can
positively affect employees to identify themselves with their organizations. Previous research
argued that both openness of management and participation in organizational decision making
may strengthen belief in management and organizations (McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992). Also,
employees are more engaged in decision-making process and may feel self-efficacy and selfworthiness due to their actions being taken seriously (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012). It invites
employees to be engaged in organizational debates and enables employees to participate in
decision making (Redding, 1972), which makes employees regard themselves as more of ingroup members. Such a communication climate may encourage employees to be more
committed to organization issues since they have strong trust in organizations and their
participations are regarded as contributions to organizations. Hence, it is expected that
communication climate will have a positive relationship with organizational identification.
- 12 -
Hypothesis 3. Communication climate will be positively related to organizational
identification.
As stated earlier, active engagement dimension will positively predict organizational
communication whereas independent critical thinking dimension will be negatively associated
with organizational identification. Also both of active engagement and independent critical
thinking of followership are positively related with communication climate. Since
communication climate is expected to predict positive organizational identification, it is
proposed that communication climate will partially mediate the relationship between active
engagement
dimension
of
followership
and
organizational
identification.
When
communication climate is involved as influencing factor, the main effect of active
engagement on organizational identification is expected to remain positive. Hence, a partial
mediating effect is expected. Furthermore, communication climate will also partially mediate
the influence of independent critical thinking of followership on organizational identification.
The negative relationship of independent critical thinking dimension with organizational
identification changed into positive when communication climate influences the relationship,
therefore, hence, full mediation is suggested. Grounded on the literature review, following
hypotheses are proposed.
Hypothesis 4a. Communication climate will partially mediate the effect of active
engagement characteristics of followership on organizational identification.
Hypothesis 4b. Communication climate will mediate the effect of independent critical
thinking characteristics of followership on organizational identification.
- 13 -
The Interaction effect of Network centrality on the relationship between followership
and communication climate
Network centrality refers to the degree of individuals holding a central position within
networks (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Tsai, 2000). Network centrality implies the visibility of
an individual in a network and potential communication activity of the subject. Network
centrality is strongly associated with social capital and social integration in the organizations
(Campbell, Marsden, & Hurlbert, 1986). Developing social network at work can benefit
employees since they feel proactive to engage in communications with organization members
(Thompson, 2005). Willingness of social interaction generated by network centrality may
encourage proactive followers to perceive communication climate in organizations more
positively.
Social network at work can provide employees the resources and employees with
high-level of initiatives are likely to develop networks in the organizations (Ashford & Black,
1996). Network building is important in developing social capital of employees and social
integration within organizations (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Proactive
employees can benefits with constructing central social position in networks with other
employees. Network centrality was argued to boost reciprocated relationships with group
members by pro-social behavioral styles (Gest, Graham‐Bermann & Hartup, 2001). Social
position in networks enables employees to have more chances to speak out since they hold
belief that their opinions are not disregarded due to the established relationship with other
communicators (Farmer & Rodkin, 1996). Therefore, proactive employees might have better
opportunities to get the floor and pitch, which made them possibly perceive communication
climate as more attractive when they are in a more elaborate network. Being in central
position in networks may boost actively engaged employees to experience higher chances to
expose their opinions. Employees with proactive characteristics and positioned as center of
- 14 -
networks, perceive more opportunity to make voices than employees only with proactive
characteristics since they are positioned in the core of network which gives them confidence
to present their ideas (Morrison, 2002). It describes that the proactive characteristics with high
network centrality may boost the influence of active engagement on communication climate.
As discussed earlier, active engagement of followership may have positive influence on
perceptions of communication climate as it is more positive, open and accepting. Therefore, it
is suggested that active engagement behaviors of followership with high level of network
centrality may have an interaction effect on the communication climate.
The influence of independent critical thinking on perception of communication
climate is also likely to be affected by network centrality. Employees with independent
critical thinking behavior are often engaged in analyzing the quality of arguments, clarifying
issues, questioning credibility of sources and challenging the current status of organizations
(Kennedy, Fisher & Ennis, 1991). Independent thinkers often tend to make self-reliant choices
and to be dependent on themselves (Cross and Madson, 1997). Independent thinkers show
tendency of being indifferent to opinions from other colleagues, which lead them to have less
social interaction (Dougherty, Cheung & Florea, 2008), and may lead them to stand on the
edge of the network, even outside of the network. However previous research shows that
these independent critical thinkers can be supplemented and enhanced by stimulating
interaction with others and paying attention of the shared thoughts of organization (Ten Dam
& Volman, 2004). It describes that independent critical thinkers can benefit from socializing
with colleagues and accomplishing interdependent relationship with them, which lead them to
have higher chances to be central part of network (Ibarra, 1993). Therefore, it is expected that
network centrality will have interaction effect with the influence of independent critical
thinking on communication climate.
- 15 -
Hypothesis 5a. There will be an interaction effect between active engagement of
followership and network centrality on communication climate.
Hypothesis 5b. There will be an interaction effect between independent critical
thinking of followership and network centrality on communication climate.
Network
centrality
Active
engagement
+
Communication
climate
+
Organizational
identification
+
+
Figure 1a. Conceptual model of active engagement dimension in followership
Network
centrality
Independent
critical
thinking
+
+
Communication
climate
Organizational
+
identification
–
—
—
Figure 1b. Conceptual model of independent critical thinking dimension in followership
Since the empirical research of followership has not been advanced yet, the current
study aims to adopt quantitative research design. It aims to propose insights into what effects
followership could have on organizational identification as Figure 1. It will examine whether
- 16 -
communication climate in organizations mediates the effects of followership on
organizational identification. Furthermore, it will be analyzed whether followership behaviors
and network centrality may lead to a positive effect on communication climate such as high
level of openness, trustworthiness and participation in decision making. It is expected that
network centrality contributes positively and it interacts with active behavioral characteristics
of followership on communication climate.
Method
Research Design
The present study employed a cross-sectional quantitative design. Online survey was adopted
to examine the moderating and mediating relationships followership, network centrality,
communication climate and organizational identification variables.
Procedure
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were informed that the study is designed to
investigate the influence of followership on social interaction within the organization and
what factors influence the organizational outcomes. The questionnaire took approximately 10
minutes to be completed. Respondents were recruited through email and SNS community
from 1st of May till 18th of May in 2014.
Respondents
124 respondents who has been currently working participated in an online survey. The survey
was restricted to employees who have 5 or more co-workers in order to measure the influence
of network centrality more precisely. Engagement of social interaction with other colleagues
is preceded to measure Network centrality. Since number of colleagues represents the possible
- 17 -
communicators at work and component of network, it has been figured to reach at least 5 or
more. Respondents consist of 53 males (42.7%) and 71 females (57.3%). The average age of
participants was 31.65 years old (SD = 9.895) and the average years of working was 3.25
years (SD = 4.297). In addition, 79.8% of respondents (n = 99) have a full-time job while 20.2%
of respondents (n = 25) have a part-time. The respondents were generally well-educated (86.3%
possessed and university degree or post-graduate degree).
Measures
Followership. The followership was measured with 20 items developed by Kelley (1992).
Kelley argued that the behavioral characteristics of effective followership are supported by
two behavioral characteristics; Active engagement and Independent critical thinking. These
two behavioral characteristics represent different aspects of followership, and it was dealt
with separately as respective variables in the research (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore &
Bullock, 2009). Therefore, the current study will look into the behavioral characteristics of
followership separately and how each of the characteristics has an effect on the organizational
outcomes. The questionnaire includes items such as ‘Does your work help you fulfill some
societal goal or personal dream that is important to you?’ for active engagement and ‘Do you
make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of your supervisor’s decision rather than
just doing what you are told?’ for independent thinking. The 13 items were measured with 5point Likert scale, with a range from ‘never’ to ‘almost always’. Reliability of total
Followership items was α.=847 and Factor analysis result shows that each of 13 items are
loaded onto two dimensions, ‘Active engagement’(α = .871) and ‘Independent critical
thinking’ (α = .651).
Communication climate. The mediating variable, communication climate is measured
with 15 items developed by Smidts, Pruyn and Van Riel (2001). Previous research defines
- 18 -
communication climate as consisting of three dimensions (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012; Smidts,
Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001); Participation in the decision-making communication climate (α
= .838), Trust in the communication (α = .821) and Openness of the communication (α
= .778). In the present study, the reliability of the complete scale was α = .706. The degree to
agree the statements of their communication climate were asked on a 5-point Likert scale,
from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. Sample statements are ‘If you say something
here, you are taken seriously.’ (participation), ‘When my colleagues tell me something, I trust
them to tell me the truth.’ (trust) and ‘The objectives of our organization are probably only
known by those who formulated them.’ (openness).
Organizational identification. It is measured with the six items on 5-point Likert scale
from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’, developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). The
measurement scale has been adopted in a number of studies of organizational identification
(Liu, Loi & Lam, 2011). Sample questions are ‘I am very interested in what others think about
the company I work for’ and the 6 items were averaged into one construct (α = . 628).
Network centrality. Network centrality refers to network size, as well as the range or
degree of centrality. Network centrality was measured with ‘team-member network centrality'
items. In the previous research of Neubert and Tagger (2004), team member network
centrality was measured by two questions; ‘Please write the names of team members who are
important sources of professional advice, who you approach if you have a work-related
problem, or when you want advice on a decision you have to make (advice)’ and ‘Please write
the names of team members you can count on, who you view as allies, who are dependable in
times of crisis (support)’. Freeman’s research (1979) asked the total number of direct contacts
an employee has as measure of degree centrality. The methods in the current research adapted
Freeman’s methods (1979) and combined with the ‘team member network centrality’
measures. The questions were paraphrased to adjust in order to ask the number of team
- 19 -
members for the corresponding the questions. The advisory team member network centrality
was asked with ‘Indicate how many team members do you consider as important sources of
professional advice, who you approach if you have a work-related problem, or when you want
advice on a decision you have to make’. The supportive team member network centrality was
asked with ‘Indicate how many team members can you can count on, who you view as allies,
who are dependable in times of crisis’. This measure was standardized by dividing the number
of answered team member, across both questions, by total number of the team members.
Relative measurement enables comparing values measured by different units with
standardizing values with an unified unit (Bryman, 2012). The two questions were positively
correlated (r = .695, p < .01), therefore, averaged into a composite measure (α = . 614).
Result
The analyses will be reported in three sections. First, the variables were standardized to unify
the different scales. Separate linear regression analyses were conducted to see direct
relationships among followership, communication climate and organizational identification.
The multiple mediation analysis will be followed to see whether communication climate
mediates the effect of followership and organizational identification. In order to see
moderating effect of network centrality on the relationship between followership and
organizational Identification, the main effect of followership on organizational Identification
is examined by simple linear regression analysis and multiple moderation analysis is reported.
Active engagement and independent critical thinking dimensions of followership were tested
separately for all of the hypotheses. Correlation analysis result (see Appendix 2.) shows that
independent critical thinking characteristics of Followership does not have any significant
association with communication climate (r = .168, p > .05), organizational identification (r
= .132, p > .05) and network centrality (r = -.068, p > .05). On the other hand, active
- 20 -
engagement of Followership has a positive relationship with Communication Climate (b
= .275, p < .01), Organizational Identification (b = .334, p < .01) and network centrality (b
= .237, p < .01).
Direct effect of Followership on Communication Climate and Organizational Identification
Active engagement dimension of followership is expected to predict organizational
identification positively (Hypothesis 1a). To examine the main effect, simple linear regression
analyses were conducted separately. Regression analysis (F = 27.488, R2 = .184, p < .001)
shows a main effect of active nagement (b = .429, p < .001) predicting organizational
identification. Therefore hypothesis 1a was confirmed. 18% variance of organizational
identification could be predicted by active engagement dimension of followership. Also
independent critical thinking dimension of followership is suggested to be related to
organizational identification (Hypothesis 1b). Simple linear regression analysis was
conducted, and the result showed (F = 2.163, R2 = .017, p = .144) that the relationship
between independent critical thinking and organizational identification is not significant (b
= .132, p = .144). Hence, hypothesis 1b was rejected.
In order to see the main effect of active engagement and independent critical thinking
on communication climate, two simple regression analyses were conducted separately. Simple
regression analysis of active engagement and communication climate variables (F = 9.989, R2
= .076, p < .01) shows that active engagement is positively related to communication climate
(b = .275, p < .01). Therefore hypothesis 2a was confirmed. It shows very weak relationship
active engagement and communication climate, such that 7% variance of communication
climate is explained by active engagement. In terms of the relationship between independent
critical thinking and communication climate, analysis (F = 3.47, R2 = .028, p = .062) shows
that non-significant result (b = .168, p = .062). Hence, hypothesis 2b was rejected.
- 21 -
Communication
climate
has
a
significant
relationship
with
organizational
identification (R2 = .112, p < .001) and it has positive influence on organizational
identification (b = .275, p < .001). Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Communication climate
predicts 12% variance of organizational identification. Overall, the result shows that active
engagement characteristics of followership, communication climate and organizational
identification have a statistically significant and positive relationship respectively.
Mediation by Communication Climate
Hypothesis 4a proposed that the effect of active engagement of followership on organizational
identification is partially mediated by the communication climate. Hypothesis 1a and 2a were
confirmed and the findings suggested that communication climate is positively associated
with organizational identification. To examine the partial mediation, multiple regression
analysis with active engagement dimension of followership, communication climate and
organizational identification was conducted. Sobel’s Z values are tested to confirm statistical
significance of the mediation.
The result shows (F = 18.543, R2 = .235, p < .001) that the effect of followership on
organizational identification is partially mediated by communication climate (b = .364, p
< .01; b’ = .234, p < .001; Z = 2.48, p < .05). The mediation model explains 23% variance of
organizational identification. The strong positive main effect of active engagement on
organizational identification (b = .429, p < .001) was decreased when communication climate
was included in the regression analysis (b = . 364, p < .01). Therefore the relationship
between followership and organizational identification seem to be mediated by
communication climate. Hypothesis 4a was confirmed.
Another mediation regression analysis was conducted to test hypothesis 4b. And the
result shows (F = 3.012, R2 = .047, p = .053) that communication climate (b = .174, p = .053)
- 22 -
does not mediate the influence of independent critical thinking on organizational
identification. Hypothesis 4b was rejected.
Interaction effect of Followership and Network Centrality on Communication Climate
Hypothesis 5a suggested that the relationship between active engagement and communication
climate is influenced by network centrality so that moderation analysis was conducted. For
the analysis an interaction term between active engagement and network centrality was
included with active engagement and network centrality as independent variables and
communication climate as a dependent variable. Multiple regression analysis (F = 6.900, R2
= .147, p < .001) shows both followership (b = .281, p < .01) and network centrality (b = .258,
p < .01) have significant positive relations with communication climate. However, the
interaction effect of followership and network centrality on communication climate was
statistically not significant (b = -.057, p = .522). No interaction effect was observed, hence,
hypothesis 5a was rejected.
Another multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the moderating effect of
network centrality on the relationship of independent critical thinking with communication
climate. An interaction term between independent critical thinking and network centrality was
included with independent critical thinking and network centrality as independent variables.
The result (F = 4.088, R2 = .093, p < .01) shows both independent critical thinking (b = .193,
p < .05) and network centrality (b = .248, p < .01) have a non-significant relationships with
communication climate. The interaction effect of independent critical thinking and network
centrality on communication climate was statistically not significant (b = -.049, p = .559).
Hence, hypothesis 5b was rejected.
- 23 -
Discussion
The analysis of results provides insightful findings. It answers the research question that only
active engagement dimension of followership was to be positively related to communication
climate and organizational identification and communication climate partially mediates the
impact of active engagement on organizational identification. There was no interaction effect
of the network centrality on the relationship between followership and organizational
communication.
Actively engaging behavioral characteristic of followership is perceived as a great
benefit for improving communication climate of organizations. As a result of separate linear
regression analyses, active engagement characteristic appeared to have relationship with
communication climate. To be more specific, employees who are actively engaged with
organizational matters may perceive communication climate in the organizations as
encouraging individuals’ participation so that their opinions are taken seriously (Zhang,
Ioerger & Volz, 2004).
Furthermore, active engagement characteristics of followership is a significant
predictor of organizational identification. Employees showing high level of active
engagement are likely to identify themselves as a part of an organization and feel
belongingness to the organization. Aligning with literature review, communication climate
predicts the degree of organizational identification that individual employees may feel such
that employees experience oneness to organizations when organization has a more open and
participative communication climate. The proactivity of employees in participative
communication helps colleagues to be reminded on the shared goals and aims to achieve the
teamwork actively (Kamali, Fan & Yen, 2007). And the exchange thoughts of organizational
matters makes employees feel strong ties with each other, and the bond is expanded to group
and organizational level (Dayton & Henriksen, 2007).
- 24 -
The result also shows that communication climate is expected to influence
organizational identification and mediate the direct impact of active engagement behavior on
organizational identification. The importance of communication within organizations has
been contributed to explain development of employees’ commitment to the organizations
(Carrière & Bourque, 2009), which lead employees to higher organizational identification.
The multiple regression analysis shows that communication climate partially mediates the
relationship between followership and organizational identification. The mediation model fit
increased explained variance of organizational identification with active engagement (R2
= .184), when communication climate is involved (R2 = .235). It illustrates that
communication climate becomes an influential factor to enhance organizational identification
of proactive employees.
To explore the further relationship between active engagement and communication
climate perceived by employees, I look for the moderating effect of network centrality.
Network centrality is expected to serve as a moderator between active engagement behavioral
characteristics of followership and communication climate (Morrison, 2002), as well as
holding the main effect on communication climate. The regression analysis result explains the
network centrality is a significant predictor for communication climate. Employees with
proactive behavioral characteristics may lead employees to feel the communication climate of
organizations as more participative and open. There was no significant interaction effect
between followership and network centrality on communication was observed.
However, individual’s network size neither lead enhanced impact of followership on
perceived communication climate and nor moderate the influence. The unexpected finding is
not compatible with argumentation of previous research. It needs to be further explored in
future research with different research design and methods in order to provide an in-depth
understanding of the findings, how network centrality does not influence the effect of active
- 25 -
engagement of followership on perceived communication climate, as expected in the literature
review. The rejected moderating effect of network centrality explained as network centrality
is rather associated with active engagement characteristics of followership. It has been
suggested that proactive employees tend to develope social networks in organizations
(Thompson, 2005). Followers who are proactive to engage with jobs and organizations are
more likely to engage communications with members in the organizations (Yirmiya, Gamliel,
Pilowsky, Feldman, Baron-Cohen & Sigman, 2006), therefore, proactive employees tend to
construct a large network and become positioned central part of the network (Morrison, 2002).
Therefore, further research may focus on direct relationship between followership and
network centrality.
Independent critical thinking dimension of followership does not have any association
with communication climate, organizational identification and network centrality. The
explanation for the result is that Kelley’s(1992) model suggests more of the interactive effect
of independent critical thinking and active engagement dimension. The model explains the
two dimensions are not correlated but mutually interactive. It was proposed that independent
critical thinking characteristics can be more beneficial with high level of active engagement.
The research argues that employees only with independent critical tendency are likely to
criticize rather than support with constructive suggestion. High level of independent critical
thinking with low active engagement may criticize organizations, and such a negative
feedback can influence organizational climate, as well as prevent other members to proceed
further suggestions (Baron, 1993). Employees with both independent critical thinking and
active engagement may become asset to organizations when Therefore, further research can
focus on the interaction effect of these two dimensions and aims to construct more solid
dimensions and variables in order to examine followership empirically.
- 26 -
Although the current research did find some insightful results, it had to cope with
some limitations. Causal relationship among variables are hardly able to be discussed sicne
cross-sectional research design has difficulties in establishing causal effect. Additionally,
methods to measure network centrality is combination of two separate measurement, yet to be
empirically validated. The measures of each variables are self-reported, which could interfere
with the outcomes. Social desirability bias implies that respondents are likely to answer in
socially acceptable way which may not reflect accurately how they truly think (Nederhof,
1985). However, the strength of the effects discovered, including the mediating role of
communication climate, weighs confidence in the internal validity. In order to strengthen the
theoretical argumentation of the present study, future research may consider assumed causal
effects adopting experiment or longitudinal research design. Also future research may need to
consider the assumed causal relationships in the current study and can be directed to develop
more solid measurement of network centrality and validate the scale as well as improve social
desirability bias.
Based on the findings, organizations are advised to invest in attracting employees with
active engagement behavioral characteristics, or invest in training for the development of such
qualities in order to enhance employees’ self-identification towards organizations. The
proactive behavior of employees can be encouraged by empowerment and job enrichment
(Campbell, 2000). In order to boost enterprising qualities and integrity of employees,
managers can encourage employees to be part of the process to create a shared goal and
expectations (van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Identifying core value of organiztions and
share it often with employees can boost employees to be initiative for new projects (Ferris,
Arthur, Berkson, Kaplan, Harrell-Cook & Frink, 1998). When thoughts of employees do not
align with organizations’ goals, it is required to let them experience support of their dissent
and possibility of change orientation that organizations pursue (Organ, 1990).
- 27 -
Furthermore, facilitating such an open and participative communication climate is
suggested as an influential factor for successful organizational management and
organizational identification of employees. Communication climate can be improved by
investing in physical and psychological support for employees. Management can consider
collecting feedback from employees and apply the internal measures not only to improve
organizational issues, but also to present that organizations do not limit employees’ freedom
to express and let employees experience that their opinions contributes to improvement of
organizations (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2003). Also, putting efforts to focus on individual
needs and working benefits may employees feel taken seriously (Huselid, 1995). The
assessment of communication climate is rather based on individual employees’ interpretation
than shared evaluations of the climate among colleagues or within organizations (Jones &
James, 1979). Therefore, managers should more pay attention to show care for individual
situation and needs in order to enable them to perceive communication climate as more
supportive and welcoming for employees to be engaged in.
The findings provide insights for organizations to encourage employees to exert
followership and take initiatives. Organizational identification enables employees define
themselves with organizations, and it increases job satisfaction and enhance performance of
employees (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). In order for employees to achieve high level
of organizational identification, it is encouraged to create supportive organizational climate to
enable them to actively contribute. Attractive communication encourages employees to feel
comfortable to state suggestions, feel appreciated by organizations and consequently feel
included in the organizations (Smidts, Pruyn & van Riel, 2001). The present research
establishes the empirical foundation for further academic research of followership and
provides managerial implications. The study emphasizes the importance of followership,
- 28 -
especially active engagement behavior of employees would yields positive organizational
outcomes.
- 29 -
Reference
Albert, S., Ashforth, B. and Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational identity and identification:
Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review,
25(1), 13-17.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational
support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of
management, 29(1), 99-118.
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive
theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of
desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.
Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership The Theoretical Foundation of a Contemporary Construct.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50-60.
Baker, S. D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2007). Team effectiveness and leader-follower agreement:
An empirical study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 12(1), 15-23.
Baker, S. D., Mathis, C. J., & Stites-Doe, S. (2011). An exploratory study investigating leader
and follower characteristics at US healthcare organizations. Journal of Managerial
Issues.
Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as
servant leaders. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 143-151.
- 30 -
Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived
unfairness in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior:
A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential
structure. Sociological Theory, 20, 157−179.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A Fresh Look at
Followership: A Model for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles. Journal of
Behavioral & Applied Management, 7(3).
Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and
employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(2),
111-131.
Blau, P. M. (1968). Hierarchy of authority in organizations. The American Journal of
Sociology, 73(4), 453-467.
Bligh, M. C., & Schyns, B. (2007). Leading questions: the romance lives on: contemporary
issues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 343-360.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Buchholz, W. (2001).
Open communication climate. Bentley College Waltham,
Massachusetts.
Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. The
Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 52-66.
Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1986). Social resources and
socioeconomic status. Social networks, 8(1), 97-117.
Carriere, J., & Bourque, C. (2009). The effects of organizational communication on job
satisfaction and organizational commitment in a land ambulance service and the
- 31 -
mediating role of communication satisfaction. Career Development International,
14(1), 29-49.
Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower
identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179-189.
Craik, K. H., Ware, A. P., Kamp, J., O’Reilly III, C., Staw, B., & Zedeck, S. (2002).
Explorations of construct validity in a combined managerial and personality
assessment programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
171-193.
Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership–a review of the literature.
Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.
Dayton, E., & Henriksen, K. (2007). Teamwork and communication: communication failure:
basic components, contributing factors, and the call for structure. Joint Commission
Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 33(1), 34-47.
Dickson, M. W., Smith, D. B., Grojean, M. W., & Ehrhart, M. (2001). An organizational
climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect
them. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 197-217.
Dougherty, T. W., Cheung, Y. H., & Florea, L. (2008). The role of personality in employee
developmental networks. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 653-669.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member
identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.
Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. (1988). The effect of organizational identification on employee
affective and performance responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(1), 105112.
- 32 -
Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA):
Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 10431062.
Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom
social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5(2),
174-188.
Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D.
(1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource managementorganization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3),
235-264.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks,
1(3), 215-239.
Forward, G. L., Czech, K., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Assessing Gibb's supportive and defensive
communication climate: An examination of measurement and construct validity.
Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 1-15.
Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you
see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.
Gest, S. D., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and
unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric
status. Social Development, 10(1), 23-40.
Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate predictors of
commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379402.
- 33 -
Falcione, R. L., Sussman, L., & Herden, R. P. (1987). Communication climate in
organizations. Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary
perspective, 195-227.
Heller, T., & Til, J. V. (1982). Leadership and Followership: Some summary propositions.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 405-414.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply
abroad?. Organizational dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.
Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership
process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,
30(1), 96-112.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal,
38(3), 635-672.
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of
network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative science
quarterly, 277-303.
Isenberg, A. (1949). Critical communication. The philosophical review, 330-344.
Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of
individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational behavior
and human performance, 23(2), 201-250.
Jones, C., & Volpe, E. H. (2011). Organizational identification: Extending our understanding
of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3),
413-434.
- 34 -
Kamali, K., Fan, X., & Yen, J. (2007). Towards a theory for multiparty proactive
communication in agent teams. International Journal of Cooperative Information
Systems, 16(2), 271-298.
Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow,
and followers who lead themselves. Broadway Business.
Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing
leaders. Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.
Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal, 18(4),
1-7.
Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E.W. K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background
and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 583602.
Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee
performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3187-3201.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
McCauley, D. P., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation
of employee trust in management, Public Administration Quarterly, 265-284.
McChesney, R. W. (1993). Critical communication research at the crossroads. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 98-104.
McClosky, H., Hoffmann, P. J., & O'Hara, R. (1960). Issue conflict and consensus among
party leaders and followers. The American Political Science Review, 406-427.
- 35 -
Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., &, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 78-102.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during
socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160.
Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational
climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20(4), 592-607.
Myers, S., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate,
apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113–137.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263-280.
Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., & Brown, B. (2010). Theory and language of climate change
communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 97-110.
Neubert, M. J., & Taggar, S. (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of
gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network
centrality to
informal leadership emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(2), 175-
194.
Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership and social influence. The
Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919-934.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research
in organizational behavior, 12(1), 43-72.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial
behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 71(3), 492.
- 36 -
Potter, E.H., III, Rosenbach, W.E., & Pittman, T.S. (1996). Leading the new professional. In
R. L. Taylor & W. E. Rosenbach (Eds.), Military leadership: In pursuit of excellence
(3rd ed., pp.
145-152). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among
Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456-493.
Putnam, L. L., & Cheney, G. (1985). Organizational communication: Historical development
and future directions. Speech communication in the 20th century, 130-156.
Redding, W. C. (1972). Communication within the organization: An interpretive review of
theory and research (p. 19). New York: Industrial Communication Council.
Rost, J. C. 1993. Leadership for the Twenty-First Century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
Salanova, M., Lorens, S., Cifre, E., Martinez, I., Schaufeli, W. B. (2003). Perceived collective
efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups:
An experimental study. Small Groups Research, 34, 43–73.
Shadur, M. A., Kienzle, R., & Rodwell, J. J. (1999). The Relationship between organizational
climate and employee perceptions of involvement: The importance of support. Group
& Organization Management, 24(4), 479-503.
Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ roles in the
leadership process. Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the
memory of James R. Meindl.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee
communication and
perceived external prestige on organizational identification.
Academy of management journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.
- 37 -
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity Directed Toward the Team
and Organization: The Role of Leadership, Commitment and Role‐breadth
Self‐efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20(3), 279-291.
Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1973). How To Choose a Leadership Pattern. Harvard
Business Review.
Ter Hoeven, C., & Fransen, M. (2012). Well-being, work engagement, or both? Explaining
the linkage between information provision, communication climate, and performance.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association.
Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2004). Critical thinking as a citizenship competence: teaching
strategies. Learning and Instruction, 14(4), 359-379.
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 1011.
Trombetta, J. J., & Rogers, D. P. (1988). Communication climate, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment the effects of information adequacy, communication
openness, and decision participation. Management Communication Quarterly, 1(4),
494-514.
Tsai, W. (2000). The formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management
Journal, 21(9), 925-939.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Ospina, S. (2012). Paradigm interplay in relational leadership: A way
forward. Advancing relational leadership research: A dialogue among perspectives,
Information Age Publishers, Charlotte, NC, 537-580.
Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A
review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83-104.
- 38 -
van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge
sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 8(6), 117-130.
Wanbe rg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity
in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373–385.
Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8).
Cambridge university press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
Bresnen, M. J. (1995). All things to all people? Perceptions, attributions, and constructions of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 495−513.
Yeo, R. K. (2007). (Re)viewing problem-based learning: An exploratory study on perceptions
of its applicability to the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22 (4), 369391.
Yirmiya, N., Gamliel, I., Pilowsky, T., Feldman, R., Baron‐Cohen, S., & Sigman, M. (2006).
The
development of siblings of children with autism at 4 and 14 months: Social
engagement, communication, and cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47(5), 511-523.
Yun, S., Cos, J., & Sims, H. P. (2006). The forgotten follower. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(4), 374−386.
Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinacy. Harvard Business Review, 43(3), 119-131.
Zhang, Y., Volz, R. A., & Yen, J. (2004, March). A decision-theoretic approach for designing
proactive communication in multi-agent teamwork. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM
symposium on Applied computing (pp. 64-71). ACM. ISO 690.
- 39 -
Appendix 1. Survey questionnaire
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are invited to participate in a master thesis research project that is being carried out under
the auspices of the Corporate Communication department, which forms part of the University
of Amsterdam. I aim to conduct scientific research into communication within organizations.
The title of the research project for which we are requesting your assistance is the antecedents
and effects of social interaction within organisations. People who are currently over 18 years
old and employed can participate in this project. The objective of the research is how
followership influences organizational outcomes.
In the course of the current research, you are encouraged to participate in survey. This will
take approximately 10 minutes.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the Corporate Communication
department, University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1. Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your answers or data will not be passed on to
third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this.
2. You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having
to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw
your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3. Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or
discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to
any explicitly offensive material.
- 40 -
4. No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide
you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to
contact the project leader at any time: Hyunsu Lee and Pernill van der Rijt, ASCoR,
University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; +31 (0)20 525 3680;
[email protected].
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact
the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following
address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal
48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; [email protected]. Any complaints or
comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this
opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly
appreciate.
With kind regards,
Hyunsu Lee
- 41 -
Thank you for participating in this short survey. The topic of the survey is social interaction
within organizations. The survey takes about 10 minutes to complete.
Informed consent for participation
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of
the research, as described on the previous page. My questions have been answered
satisfactorily. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I
retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am
aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results
are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a
way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to
third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the
research, either now or in future, I can contact Hyunsu Lee ([email protected]) and
Pernill van der Rijt ([email protected], Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam).
Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the
Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat,
Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam;
020-525 3680; [email protected].
I declare that I have read these statements and I agree to take part in this study.
- 42 -
Q. Which of the following statements describes your current work situation the best?
Employed
Self-Employed
Internship
Unemployed
► For whom chose 4. Unemployed: end of survey with the message “Sorry, you are
not eligible target for the survey. Thank you.”
► For whom answered as Employed, Self-employed or Internship:
Q. How many co-workers (or employees) do you have in your organization?
(Indicate in numbers)
► For whom answered as ≥ 5: Survey continues
► For whom answered as < 5: End of survey with the message “Sorry, you are
not eligible target for the survey. Thank you.”
Q. How long have you been employed by your organization? (In years)
Q. The following questions are about social interaction within your organization. Please
indicate to what extent the following statements apply to you.
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
- 43 -
Almost always
-
1. Does your work help you fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is
important to you?
-
2. Are your personal work goals aligned with the organization’s priority goals?
-
3. Are you highly committed to and energized by your work and organization, giving
them your best ideas and performance?
-
4. Does your enthusiasm also spread to and energize your coworkers?
-
5. Instead of waiting for or merely accepting what the leader tells you, do you
personally identify which organizational activities are most critical for achieving the
organization’s priority goals?
-
6. Do you actively develop a distinctive competence in those critical activities so that
you become more valuable to the leader and the organization?
-
7. When starting a new job or assignment, do you promptly build a record of successes
in tasks that are important to the leader?
-
8. Can the leader give you a difficult assignment without the benefit of much
supervision, knowing that you will meet your deadline with highest-quality work and
that you will ‘fill in the cracks’ if need be?
-
9. Do you take the initiative to seek out and successfully complete assignments that go
above and beyond your job?
-
10. When you are not the leader of a group project, do you still contribute at a high
level, often doing more than you share?
-
11. Do you independently think up and champion new ideas that will contribute
significantly to the leader’s or the organization’s goals?
- 44 -
-
12. Do you try to solve the though problems (technical or organizational), rather than
look to the leader to do it for you?
-
13. Do you help out other coworkers, making them look good, even when you don’t
get any credit?
-
14. Do you help the leader or group see both the upside potential and downside risks
of idea or plans, playing the devil’s advocate if need be?
-
15. Do you understand the leader’s needs, goals, and constraints, and work hard to
help meet them?
-
16. Do you actively and honestly own up to your strengths and weaknesses rather than
put off evaluation?
-
17. Do you make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of the leader’s decision
rather than just doing what you are told?
-
18. When the leader asks you to do something that runs contrary to your professional
or personal preferences, do you say ‘no’ rather than ‘yes’?
-
19. Do you act on your own ethical standards rather than the leader’s or the group’s
standards?
-
20. Do you assert your views on important issues, even though it might mean conflict
with your group or reprisals from the leader?
Q. How many team members do you have in your team? (Indicate in number)
Q. Please indicate how many team members do you consider as important sources of
professional advice, who you approach if you have a work-related problem, or when you want
advice on a decision you have to make. (Indicate in number)
- 45 -
Q. Please indicate how many team members can you can count on, who you view as allies,
who are dependable in times of crisis. (Indicate in number)
Q. The following questions are about your belongingness towards the organization. Please
indicate to what extent you agree with the following statements.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
-
1. When someone criticizes our organization, it feels like a personal insult.
-
2. I am very interested in what others think about the organization I work for.
-
3. When I talk about the organization I work for, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’.
-
4. The successes of the organization I work for, are my successes.
-
5. When someone praises the organization, it feels like a personal compliment.
-
6. If a story in the media criticized the organization, I would feel embarrassed.
Q. The following questions are about your organizational environment. Please indicate to
what extent you agree with the following statements.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree
- 46 -
-
1. When my colleagues tell me something, I trust them to tell me the truth.
-
2. When my supervisor tells me something, I trust him/her to be candid and honest.
-
3. My supervisor is open to suggestions I put to him/her.
-
4. If you say something here, you are taken seriously.
-
5. If the general management of our organization tells us something (about how we are
doing our job), I trust them to tell us the truth.
-
6. My colleagues are open to suggestions I put to them.
-
7. Our general management is open to suggestions we put to them.
-
8. At the organization, I have ample opportunity to have my say.
-
9. Employees at our organization I work for should be involved more in the decisionmaking in the organization.
-
10. The information we receive here is often about trivial matters.
-
11. In conversations with colleagues you often hear more about our organization than
you do from the management.
-
12. The objectives of our organization are probably only known by those who
formulated them.
-
13. Most of what you hear through the official channels of our organization (Such as
social networks, magazines published by the organization or any other internal
channel) has long ceased to be topical.
-
14. If you hear information that concerns you, then it is usually 'via-via'.
-
15. If I put a question to a colleague from another department or office, then I usually
get an answer quickly.
- 47 -
Please answer the following questions to help me to understand your feedback better. No
information will be used solely for research purpose.
Q. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Q. What is your age? (Indicate in years)
Q. What is your current country of residence?
Q. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Lower level education (e.g. Primary school)
Secondary education
Vocational degree (MBO, technical or vocational training)
University graduate degree, HBO
Post graduate degree
Other, namely:
Q. What is your total gross income per year?
Less than €15,000
€15,000 to €29,999
€30,000 to €44,999
€45,000 to €59,999
€60.000 to €74.999
- 48 -
€75,000 to €89,999
€90,000 to €104,999
€105,000 to €119,999
€120,000 to €134,999
€135,000 to €149,999
€150,000 or more
Q. In what industry/ sector do you work?
Construction
Communication
Culture
Mining and quarrying
Financial institutions
Health and social work
Trade, commercial services
Catering
Industrial
Agriculture, forestry and fishing
Energy
Education
Public utilities
Government services, public administration
Transport
Business services
Other, namely:
- 49 -
Q. Do you have a full or part-time job?
Fulltime (32 hours per week or more)
Part-time work (less than 32 hours per week)
Q. What is your current position (corporate title) in the organization?
Intern
Staff / Personnel
Assistant manager (Junior manager)
Senior manager (Section head)
General manager (Department head)
Senior executives (Executive managing director/ Senior vice president)
President
Other, namely:
- End of the survey -
- 50 -
Appendix 2. Analysis result
Table 1.
Summary of simple regression analysis of followership, organizational identification and
communication climate
Organizational identification
Communication climate
Variable
Active-
F
R2
β
F
R2
27.488
.184
.082
.429**
9.989
.076
.087
.275*
2.163
.017
.090
.132
3.542
.028
.089
.168
15.368
.112
.085
.334**
SE B
SE B
β
engagement
Independentcritical thinking
Communicationclimate
*p < .01., **p < .001.
Table 2.
Multiple regression analysis for mediation
Organizational identification
Variable
F
R2
SE B
β
Active engagement
18.543 .235
.083
.234*
Communication climate
18.543 .235
.083
.364*
Independent critical thinking 3.012
.047
.089
.148
Communication climate
.047
.089
.174
3.012
*p < .01., **p < .001.
- 51 -
Table 3.
Multiple regression analysis for moderation (Hypothesis 5a, 5b)
Communication climate
Variable
F
R2
SE B
β
Active engagement
6.900 .147
.088
.281**
Network centrality
6.900 .147
.085
.258**
Interaction term
6.900 .147
.094
-.057
Independent critical thinking
4.088 .093
.088
.193
Network centrality
4.088 .093
.087
.248
Interaction term
4.088 .093
.083
-.052
(Active enagement × network centrality)
(Independent critical thinking × network centrality)
*p < .05., **p < .01.
- 52 -