The United Kingdom Ministry of Defence – the Case for Followership as a key Element of Leadership Development Professor

Using the Kelley (1992) Followership Style instrument this study explores the role and perceptions of Followership within the UK Ministry of Defence. In particular, within the Armed Services and the Civil Service it was apparent from the literature that only the RAF formally recognised the role of Followership within their Leadership staff development programmes, hence the research aimed to see whether this was reflected in self-perceptions of Followership Style and the extent to which it is applied within the organisation. The analysis concluded that the analysed sample (298 responses) produced an atypical profile compared to other studies that have used the instrument. The RAF showed statistically significant higher scores than the other Armed Services or the Civil Servants and scores increased with Rank/Grade. The analysis also highlighted that the individuals seemed not to be recognised as good Followers by their leaders, they appeared not to recognise their reports as good Followers and in all cases the organisation seemed not to recognise their value. These aspects provide scope for further research to better understand the organisational culture, processes and practices that appear to act as a barrier to the extraction of the benefits of having good Followers even in an area where Star Followers dominate. ‘Leaders should acknowledge followership as an ethical endeavour, and foster followers who act in good conscience’ (Royal Australian Navy, 2010, p.67). 1Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the UK Shrivenham, UK. [email protected], Ph +44 1793785911, Fax +441793785871 2Cranfield University, Defence Academy of the UK, Shrivenham UK. [email protected], Ph +44 (0) 1793 785493, Fax +44 (0) 1793785871 3Merlin Project Team, Box 275. , AgustaWestland Helicopters, Lysander Road, Yeovil BA20 2YB. [email protected], Ph +44(0)1935 702130, Fax +44 (0)1935 703688 2 Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3(4), December 2015 The UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) was subjected to a major review in 2011 in response to the assertion that “the existing departmental management structure was demonstrably not working well, and had contributed to the Department’s financial crisis” (MOD 2011, p.9).The Defence Reform Report and the requirement for the MOD to fundamentally change the way it conducts its business was endorsed by the MOD and its findings have since been translated into the Defence Transformation programme. The change will require strong, decisive leadership and both acceptance and commitment from the followers in the organisation who will be required to deliver the change. The Defence Transformation programme is the greatest organisational change to UK defence since the establishment of the unified MOD in 1964. This transformation activity is being carried out whilst the MOD is engaged on operations, experiencing significant budget and manpower reductions. The consequence of reducing the MOD’s personnel levels is that those individuals remaining will in effect need to take a more proactive role and accept greater responsibility for the delivery of the organisational transformation. However, it is also the case that in the MOD’s ‘Have your say’ staff survey the most significant finding was the lack of staff confidence in the change leadership skills at the senior levels of the Department (MOD, 2013). Leadership has a key role to play in the delivery of change but equally all leaders are also followers and it can be argued that followership is just as important as leadership within the context of delivering major change.Leadership has been extensively researched over the years by many academics resulting in a large number of definitions; however, two common themes emerge:  Leadership is an influence relationship between leaders and followers (Adair, 2008, Bass, 1997 & Daft, 2011).  Leaders are a source of inspiration to their followers (Bass &Avolio, 1990, Zhu, Avolio, Riggio&Sosik, 2011). With specific regard to the followership dimension there are two dominant academic theories of leadership: situational and transformational. Hersey & Blanchard (1993) stated that leaders adapted their style of leadership in response to the development/maturity of their followers; this was defined as situational leadership. Burns (1978) was the first to identify the theory of transactional and transformational leadership; Bass (1985) refined this work developing transformational leadership as being able to inspire followers to act not for themselves but for the group’s common good. Neal, Boutselis & Bennett 3 The subject of followership has not been as well researched (as highlighted by the internet search results given in Table 1) or as well understood as leadership and due to the scarcity of the research a definitive term for followership has not become widely accepted. Individual academics have generated their own definitions for followers and followership based on its relationship to leaders and leadership (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). Search tool Leadership titles Followership titles Ratio EBSCO (academic papers and journals) 129,769 744 174/1 Amazon UK (books) 71,975 187 384/1 Table 1: Ratio of Leadership to Followership academic journal and books in 2013. Source: Author. Notwithstanding this, followership has now become an accepted part of the leadership and management taxonomy with the first research by Follett (1949). More focused research into followership has been carried out in the last 25 years with the most recognised academic literature being authored by Kelley (1988, 1992 and 2008), Chaleff (2008 and 2009) and Kellerman (2007, 2008). Kelley (1992) wrote about the need for effective or exemplary followers who were enthusiastic, intelligent, self reliant, independent thinkers who are actively engaged and committed to implementing their organisation’s goals. Kelley (2008) revised his definition of exemplary followers renaming them ‘Star Followers’. Chaleff (2008) argued that effective followers must act courageously and become partners in their organisation. Whilst Kellerman (2008) stated that the most effective followers are diehards for their organisation and its values. Kellerman went further by offering a definition of followership as “a relationship...between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of the former to the latter” (Kellerman, 2008, p. xx). Using the UK MOD as the vehicle this paper will explore the followership styles that exist within an Operating Centre which is staffed by all arms of the military and the Civil Service and covers a wide spectrum of Ranks/Grades and set against the backdrop of the UK MOD undergoing a transformational change programme. Leadership and Followership Leadership studies have covered many dimensions of the subject including, the personal characteristics, traits and styles that leaders are born with, through to behaviours that can be learned and adopted through education and experience. 4 Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3(4), December 2015 One strand of research found that leadership was based on situational constraints, individuals with unique skills and attributes step up to lead as a situation unfolds (Bolden, Gosling, Marturano& Dennison, 2003). Situational leadership theory was developed from the Contingency theories. The Hersey & Blanchard Situational Leadership theory dates back to 1977 and proposed that leaders should adapt an appropriated type of behaviour based on the level of maturity of their subordinates (Yukl, 2006). ‘Subordinate’ was used as a synonym for the term ‘follower’. The theory went through many iterations leading to a revised definition where the correct leadership style is now based on the follower readiness level (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). The follower’s maturity levels must be assessed in order to determine their readiness and from that leaders adapt their styles based on how ready and willing the follower is to perform the required tasks, in terms of competency and motivation. “The focus in the situational approach to leadership is on observed behavior, not on any hypothetical inborn or acquired ability or potential for leadership. The emphasis is on the behavior of leaders and their group members (followers) and various situations”, (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993, p. 89). Burns (1978) was the first to identify the theory of transformational leadership stating it occurred when people engage with others in a moral purpose to change for a common goal. This engagement has a transformational effect on leaders and followers alike through aspirational change (Burns, 1978). Burns proposed that “a transforming leader shapes, alters, and elevates the motives, values and goals of followers achieving significant change in the process” (Bolden et al., 2003, p.15). In this the importance of the leader-follower relationship is recognised and transformational leadership seeks to change or transform both individuals and organisations. Burns stated that: “Transforming leadership, while more complex (than transactional), is more potent. The transforming leader recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower... looks for potential motives in followers... The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and evaluation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents”, (Burns, 1978, p.4). Transformational leadership responds to the needs, aspirations and values of followers in order to achieve organisational change. Bass (1985) further refined transformational leadership theory stating it inspires followers to act not for themselves but for the common good of their organisation. The shared responsibility between the leader and the follower to effect organisational change is the key point of transformational leadership. Neal, Boutselis & Bennett 5 Sadly the term ‘follower’ has attracted a negative connotation, Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson & Morris (2006) observed that followership has a stigma attached to it and the term follower is “often linked to negative and demeaning words like passive, weak, and conforming” (p.304). Agho (2009) noted that followership is viewed negatively and went further to state that followership was “seldom presented as an important trait for any person who aspires to lead others” (p.159). The best method to remove this stigma would be for the organisation’s leaders to publicly recognise the value they attach to their followers; demonstrating that followership is an essential trait of leaders and the leadership within the organisation.Berg (1998) stated that good followers were created by leaders who understood their obligation to develop their people and followers must feel they are valued and that their views, even if they differ from their leaders, are respected. The organisation must first establish and identify what it defines as good followership and recognise that good leadership must include the ability to recognise good followership. Agho (2009) argued that “leaders must develop the skills to integrate effective followership into performance evaluation for all employees” (p. 165). One method to achieve this is to embed followership within the organisation’s core ethos. Once embedded, an individual’s ability as an active follower must be captured within the competency framework of the organisation along with effective measures of follower performance and the means of developing followership. If an organisation is to capture the true value of followers it is necessary, according to Kellerman, to recognise that “followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 242). Burns (1978) wrote that for transformational leadership to occur required leader and follower engagement. Subsequent research by Baker (2007) indicated that leadership cannot be studied in isolation with only minor consideration given to followers and this echoed the work of Hollander (1992) in stating that leadership and followership were “reciprocal systems” (p.46) that were interdependent. The key characteristics of followership are:  The relationship between leaders and followers. Adair (2008) and Bass (1997), propose that with leadership there is a top down influence. The follower-leader relationship is about developing an upwards influence with the follower as an individual or partner, rather than subordinate, based on respect and trust Baker (2007), Bjugstadet al. (2006), Crossman & Crossman (2011), Daft (2011), (Hollander, 1992) and (Küpers, 2007). 6 Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3(4), December 2015 Effective followers influence their leaders with constructive and upward communication seeking positive transformation in the organisation (Carsten, UhlBien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010). Kellerman noted that “Leaders who ignore or dismiss their followers do so at their peril” (2008, p. xxi). Adair (2008) noted that organisations succeed or fail based upon the input and output of their employees. However, employees succeed or fail based upon the leader–follower relationship.  Followership behaviours. Carsten et al. (2010) observed that most research focussed on leadership not followership behaviours. Followership behaviours address the behaviours of individuals acting in relation to the leader and their responses. Baker (2007), Bjugstadet al. (2006), Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock (2009) and Crossman & Crossman (2011). Daft (2011) observed that leaders behaviour can be influenced by followership, just as leaders can develop people into good leaders. As noted earlier key works on followership with particular emphasis on defining styles, typologies and approaches have been carried out by Chaleff (2008, 2009), Kellerman (2007, 2008) and Kelley (1988, 1992, 2008). In general terms these researchers are in agreement with regard to the range of characteristics that might be used to describe follower categories even if they use different words to name them, eg ‘Effective followers[Kelley]’ and ‘Partner[Chaleff]’. In particular the work of Kelley is fundamental to this study as a questionnaire instrument was produced that helps the researcher to classify primary research findings. Followers, not leaders, account for 80% of the success that organisations enjoy therefore, followers are the engine room of a good organisation (Kelley 1992). Kelley developed a follower theory and style to complement the contemporary transformational leadership styles. Kelley’s followership theory first published in 1988 and then 1992, has since become one of the most widely cited followership theories. Kelley has since reviewed this theory in 2008 but the principle remains unchanged. Kelley identified two primary characteristics of followership; independent critical thinking and active engagement, as shown in Figure 1.Kelley used these characteristics to identify five followertypologies. Kelley (2008) defined the follower styles as; Passive. Kelley renamed this style Sheep in 2008. The least effective follower, sheep are passive looking to the leader for direction. Neal, Boutselis & Bennett 7 Figure 1: Followership Style Model. Source: Adapted from Kelley 1992. Conformist. Kelley renamed this style Yes-People in 2008. Enthusiastic, positive but ineffective. Reliant on the leader to do the thinking. Alienated followers. Critical thinkers with plenty of enthusiasm, but unoriginal. They do not move in a positive direction. Pragmatics. Pragmatics preserve the status quo and will “sit on the fence and see which way the wind blows” (Kelley, 2008, p.7). Pragmatics do what they need to in order to survive.Kelley viewed these styles of follower as ineffective, with unhelpful characteristics that do not benefit the leader or organisation. Kelley went on to identify a final follower style: Effective followers. Kelley renamed this style as Star follower in 2008. “Star followers think for themselves, are very active and have very positive energy” (Kelley, 2008, p.8). Stars will challenge the leader if they do not agree with the direction the leader has taken offering constructive alternatives to the leader (Kelley, 2008). “Effective followers share a number of qualities” (Kelley, 1992, p.144). These qualities are: (1) Self-management – Able to manage themselves effectively. (2) Commitment – Both to the organisation and to a purpose, principle or individual. (3) Competence and Focus –Maximise their effectiveness. (4) Courage Be credible, honest and courageous. To become an effective follower requires developing these followership qualities. Organisational transformation can be achieved more efficiently and effectively if it is recognised that the best method of delivering the change is internally through the organisation’s own followers. It is therefore in an organisation’s best interest to develop individuals as ‘Star Followers’ with the ability to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. 8 Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3(4), December 2015 Blanchard et al. (2009) researched Kelley’s followership theory and concluded that the theory was robust but required further research. This is unsurprising given the little amount of research that has been devoted to followership. An empirical followership research study by Carsten et al., (2010) found that followership aligned with Kelley’s theory and the research showed that followership was across a continuum ranging from passive through active, to proactive. Followership within the context of the Public Sector and Military Organisations that recognise that leadership and followership throughout the organisation represent a valuable resource put themselves in a position to improve performance overall. Much of this relates to the organisational culture where in the past (and to a degree still prevalent today) the idea of challenging leadership was viewed as ‘whistle blowing’ and not good practice if you had aspirations of promotion. The National Health Service (NHS) provides an example of this issue and The King’s Fund engaged Professor Keith Grint from Warwick Business School to give advice on the recognition of followership in the NHS (Grint& Holt, 2011). This activity was driven by a number of factors, including the requirement for the NHS to become more efficient and accountable. There was an attitude prevalent within the NHS that specialist consultants, especially surgeons, were the leaders within the organisation and not to be questioned. The absence of an open culture which allowed consultant’s decisions to be questioned without fear of reprisal highlighted the need for courageous followers to be embedded at all levels of the NHS organisation. Some military organisations have identified and embraced the concept of followership:  The Australian Defence Force (ADF) embraced followership for all its personnel (ADF, 2007). Additionally the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) incorporated followership into its service ethos (RAN, 2010) and followership forms part of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) core values (RAAF, 2013).  The Royal Air Force (RAF) recognised the value of followership to the organisation and was heavily influenced by the work of Grint to the point that he edited RAF publications (Abbott, 2005) and his work was incorporated into RAF leadership policy (RAF 2013). Followership is incorporated within the RAFs core ethos and leadership development programmes (RAF, 2013) and reporting structures (RAF, 2012). Neal, Boutselis & Bennett 9  The United States military has recognised the utility of followership. Examples include the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and the United States Air Force (USAF). The USCG has stated that “all Coast Guard members are followers” (USCG, 2006, p. 3-2) and followership forms part of the USCG competence and leadership development framework. The USAF is so committed to followership that it forms part of its leadership doctrine (USAF, 2011), leadership development programme and competency frameworks for all uniformed and civilian members. The success of the USAF commitment to followership is that its personnel have become followership subject matter experts. Two of the most recognised articles on followership have been written by USAF personnel:  Dynamic Followership: The Prerequisite for Effective Leadership by Latour&Rast (2004).  The Ten Rules of Good Followership by Meilinger (2001). The MOD provides advanced leadership development programmes. A review of the career development courses run by the three services (RN, Army & RAF) was generally strong on the leadership theme as was the case for MOD Civil Servants. However, it was really only the RAF that had taken the common approach of Action Centred Leadership that was a feature of all leadership development programmes and made changes. Following a review in the mid 2000s the RAF had moved away from this to a broader appreciation of leadership development such that it reflected 5 core areas, namely, Command Leadership Management, Mission Command, Followership, Leadership of Change and Ethics. Agho (2009) argued that organisations “do not pay attention to developing effective follower ...skills because of the erroneous assumption that people know instinctively how to follow” (p. 159). Latour&Rast (2004) go further into the need to develop followers declaring: “Developing dynamic followership is a discipline...Without followership, a leader at any level will fail to produce effective institutions. Valuing followers and their development is the first step toward cultivating effective transformational leaders” (p.2).Agho (2009) recommended that development programmes must “highlight the concept and practice of effective followership” (p.166) and that leaders need to be trained “to promote and manage effective followership” (p.166). One way of capturing the importance of followership is to include it within an organisation’s competency framework and the RAF and USCG have leadership competencies that include followership. These frameworks define the skills and traits each organisation expects from its followers within a defined boundary for both the leader and follower. 10 Strategic Management Quarterly, Vol. 3(4), December 2015 The disadvantage of this competence is that very effective and able followers can go un-recognised. In fact, a courageous follower who challenges their leader offering alternative means to achieving an objective, may be marked down for their ability to support their leader and to work within a team. This is because they have been seen to question authority or to ‘rock the boat’. Followers who are dissuaded from raising concerns can become isolated individuals and become negative or even toxic to the organisation. This could have a detrimental effect to the MOD in general as courageous followers are the most effective followers in the organisation. Incorporating followership into leadership development programmes creates more effective organisations.  The USCG devotes a full year to followership within its Leadership curriculum (Woodward, 1975).  Due to their position in the organisation the ADF uses its followers to comment on a leaders’ effectiveness through 360 degree feedback (ADF, 2007).  The RAF combines formal training with force development, adventurous training and sport to develop leaders and followers. Coaching and mentoring both upwards as well as downwards also employed (RAF, 2013). Each organisation has recognised that the followership-leadership relationship is important to their organisations and has added followership to their leadership development programmes.