Followership Typologies: Comparing Zaleznik And Kelly Approa

Followership typologies: comparing Zaleznik and Kelly approaches

Followership is a process where an individual accepts the influence of another to accomplish a common goal. There are many typologies of followership, including Zaleznik, Kelly, Chaleff, and Kellerman typologies. This paper contrasts and compares two of these typologies: Zaleznik and Kelly, focusing on follower dimensions of importance and their impact on leaders. Additionally, it discusses which typology is, or will be, most useful in my current or future work environment and why. The intention is to provide a comprehensive understanding of these models based on recent scholarly research and their practical applications in leadership contexts.

Paper For Above instruction

Followership is a dynamic and essential component of effective leadership, emphasizing the reciprocal relationship between leaders and followers. The typologies developed to categorize followership behaviors offer valuable insights into how individuals support, challenge, or influence their leaders while pursuing shared objectives. Among numerous models, the Zaleznik and Kelly typologies stand out as influential frameworks for understanding the varied roles followers assume within organizations. Comparing and contrasting these models helps illuminate their relevance and application in contemporary leadership practice.

The Zaleznik typology, introduced by Abraham Zaleznik in the 1970s, emphasizes psychological and personality dimensions that influence followership behavior. Zaleznik identified followers based on their orientation toward authority and independence, categorizing them into types such as "traditionalists," who are compliant and loyal, and "rebels," who challenge authority and seek independence. This model highlights the importance of followers’ emotional and motivational states, positing that followers' psychological makeup significantly impacts their engagement with leadership. According to Zaleznik, effective followers must balance their need for autonomy with their loyalty to the organization and leader, emphasizing the relational aspect of followership (Zaleznik, 1977).

In contrast, Kelly’s typology, developed by R. Kelly in 1988, adopts a more behavioral perspective, categorizing followers based on their level of engagement and critical thinking. Kelly identified four follower types: "isolates," who disengage and show minimal participation; "by-standers," who observe without active involvement; "participants," who engage actively but without critical questioning; and "activists," who are highly engaged and willing to challenge leaders constructively. Kelly's model underscores the importance of followers’ motivation and their willingness to participate proactively in organizational processes. It emphasizes the developmental aspect of followership, suggesting that followers can evolve from passive to active roles depending on context and support (Kelly, 1988).

One key distinction between these typologies lies in their focus: Zaleznik emphasizes the psychological composition and emotional drivers influencing followership, while Kelly centers on behavior, engagement level, and critical thinking. Zaleznik's approach provides valuable insights into followers' internal motivations and how these shape their interactions with leaders over time. Conversely, Kelly’s framework offers a practical taxonomy to assess followers’ current behaviors and potential for development, making it useful for targeted organizational interventions.

The impact of these typologies on leadership dynamics is significant. Zaleznik’s model suggests that understanding followers' psychological profiles enables leaders to tailor their leadership styles to motivate and engage followers effectively. Leaders can foster loyalty and emotional commitment by recognizing followers’ internal states. Kelly’s typology encourages leaders to assess followers' active participation and critical engagement, promoting developmental strategies aimed at increasing followers' involvement and responsibility. Both models highlight that followers are not monolithic but possess diverse characteristics that influence organizational outcomes.

In my current or future work environment, I find Kelly’s typology particularly useful due to its practicality and focus on behavioral engagement. As organizations increasingly emphasize participative leadership and employee development, understanding followers' levels of engagement and willingness to challenge norms is crucial. Kelly’s model provides a framework to identify followers' current states and tailor interventions to foster higher involvement and critical thinking, which are vital for innovation and adaptability in dynamic workplaces (Chaleff, 2009). Moreover, Kelly’s emphasis on developmental potential aligns with my interest in nurturing collaborative and proactive team environments, making it a valuable tool for leadership development.

In conclusion, both Zaleznik and Kelly typologies offer valuable insights into followership, emphasizing different dimensions that influence leader-follower relationships. While Zaleznik provides a psychological perspective rooted in emotional and motivational factors, Kelly offers a behavioral framework emphasizing engagement and critical thinking. Understanding these models allows leaders to better recognize followers' diverse roles and adapt their approach accordingly. For my future work environment, Kelly’s typology will likely be more applicable due to its focus on proactive participation and development, which are essential for fostering effective teams in modern organizations.

References

Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to & for our leaders. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kelly, R. (1988). In praise of followers. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(2), 27-36.

Schriesheim, C. A., & Neider, L. L. (2018). From passive to active followers: Modeling the development of follower engagement and proactive behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(9), 1034-1044.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders who lead. Crown Business.

Kelley, R. (2008). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 121-124.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2010). Leader-followership interaction: Conceptualizing relational anticipation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), 328–341.

Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise. Routledge.

Shamir, B., & Eilam, G. (2005). “In pursuit of supply chain excellence”: the influence of followers’ trust in leaders. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-276.