The view of leadership is idolized in prominent leadership theories
that emphasize the leader's personality and behavior, while
disregarding the follower's impact on leadership. Followers are
more prone to follow charismatic leaders based on the way the followers
perceive themselves, as well as how those leaders motivate them (Howell
& Shamir, 2005). This research attempted to identify followers'
personalities as they relate to the appropriate followership style.
First, we defined followership and the different types of followership.
Then, we analyzed the various personality types as depicted in the Five
Factor Model of personality. Results show mixed findings as some
hypotheses were supported and some not, despite the mixed findings this
paper addresses the growing importance and need for researchers to
closely examine the link between followership and personality.
Keywords: Followership, Personality, Big five factor model,
We are convinced that corporations succeed or fail on the basis of
how well they are led. So, we study great leaders of the past and
present and spend vast quantities of time and money looking for leaders
to hire and trying to cultivate leadership in employees we already have.
But in searching so zealously for better leaders, we tend to lose sight
of the people these leaders will lead. Without his armies, Napoleon was
just a man with grandiose ambitions (Kelley, 1988, p. 142).
According to Hollander (1993), leadership would be non-existent
without followers. In order to gain a better understanding of the
leader-follower relationship, in-depth research needs to be conducted to
assess the most common characteristics that followers possess (Burns,
1978). In essence, the qualities that enhance the leader's ability
to lead will greatly affect an individual's ability to become a
good follower and leader. Many researchers (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995; Hollander, 1993) viewed leadership as being a symbiotic
relationship between followers and leaders.
Although there is a link between leadership and followership,
followership is still an understudied discipline. Bjugstad (2004)
conducted an internet search on the Amazon.com website on leadership and
followership and found that 95,220 titles were devoted to leadership and
792 titles on followership, with many of the titles focused on either
spiritual or political followership. Overall, the ratio of leadership to
followership books as 120:1. The lack of research and emphasis on
followership relative to leadership in the business world is ironic
considering that the two are so intertwined.
Due to the negative connotations that are associated with
followership, there has been a lack of research performed on the topic
(Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson and Morris, 2006). For this reason,
individuals avoid being labeled followers. In Williams and Miller's
(2002) study (as cited by Bjugstad, et al., 2006), "more than 1,600
executives across a wide range of industries indicated that over
one-third of all executives are followers in some fashion. Yet, rarely
did any of the executives concede that they were followers"
(p.304). The view of leadership is idolized in prominent leadership
theories (e.g. Conger & Kanungo, 1998; House, 1977). These theories
emphasize the leader's personality and behavior, while disregarding
the follower's impact on leadership. Followers are more prone to
follow charismatic leaders based on the way the followers perceive
themselves, as well as how those leaders motivate them (Howell &
Shamir, 2005). This research attempts to identify followers'
personalities as various personalities relate to the appropriate
followership style. First, we define followership and the different
types of followership. Then, we analyze the various personality types as
depicted in the Five Factor Model of personality. Finally, we propose a
model that links follower personalities and followership styles.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Howell and Costley (2001) define followership as being: An
interactive role individuals play that complements the leadership role
and is equivalent to it in importance for achieving group and
organizational performance. The followership role includes the degree of
enthusiasm, cooperation, effort, active participation, task competence,
and critical thinking an individual exhibits in support of group or
organizational objectives without the need for star 'billing'
2.1 Kelley's Model of Followership Types
Kelley (1992) proposed two overall dimensions that encompass
followership styles based on two aspects, their thoughts and their
actions. The first dimension consists of followers who are independent,
critical thinkers who consider the impact of their actions and are
willing to be creative and innovative, and may offer criticism
regardless of the consequences of doing so. The second dimension
consists of active followers who take the initiative in decision making
and accomplishing tasks without constant direction or feedback from the
leader. This second dimension illustrates the followers' sense of
ownership in their assigned tasks and in the organization as a whole.
Kelley (1988) proposed four different subsets of followership based
on the two dimensions previously mentioned. The four subsets of
followership are alienated, exemplary, passive, and conformist, this are
based on how high or low the rank on the two dimensions. "Alienated
followers are mavericks who have a healthy skepticism of the
organization; they are capable, but cynical" (Bjugstad, et al.,
2006, p. 310). Alienated followers are independent and critical
thinkers; however, they are passive in their roles. They rank high on
independent and critical thinking but low on active engagement.
According to Kelley (1992), they feel neglected by the organization,
thus view themselves as outcasts. They feel that they are being
exploited by the organization without being acknowledged for their
contributions. Alienated followers are open about their displeasure and
often direct their anger and negative emotions and attitudes towards the
organization. They are more likely to experience job dissatisfaction
which leads to high absenteeism, theft, low organizational commitment,
low motivation, and low performance.
Exemplary followers are "independent, innovative, and willing
to question leadership. This type of follower is critical to the
organization's success. Exemplary followers know how to work well
with other cohorts and present themselves consistently to all who come
into contact with them" (Bjugstad, et al., 2006, p. 310). Exemplary
followers rank high on both independent and critical thinking and active
engagement. They also add value to the groups they are a part of by
focusing on goals and taking initiative. Exemplary followers
avoid/resist meaningless compliance; therefore they do not just carry
out task without critically and independently thinking about the
consequences of those tasks. They are not afraid to question a
leader's decision or even withdraw their support from an
incompetent leader without being disruptive to the organization's
operations. Kelley's exemplary follower appears to be analogous
with Chaleff's (1995) definition of a "courageous
follower" who he defines as someone who possesses the courage to
assume responsibility, to serve, challenge, participate, and leave.
Passive followers exercise dependent, uncritical thinking and take
a passive approach within the organization, they rank low on both
independent and critical thinking and active engagement. According to
Kelley (1988), these followers lack motivation and need continuous
supervision to complete requested tasks. They lack enthusiasm, ambition,
creativity and are more likely to experience job burn out. Overall, they
"rely on leaders to do the thinking for them" (Bjugstad, et
al., 2006, p. 310). For this reason, passive followers personify
ineffective followers. Passive followers typically report for work, try
to avoid situations that encourage or force them to engage them to
independently think for themselves, and when the day is over they are
more likely to stop the tasks they were working on regardless of
completion. Passive followers are vulnerable against exploitative
leaders because they definitely do not have the courage to stand up for
themselves or the organization. Avolio (1999) acknowledges that this
type of follower is a perfect match for autocratic or transactional
leaders. Similarly, Howell and Costley (2001) agree that passive
followers expect to be spoon fed and require parental like supervision
The final followership style is the conformist follower.
"Conformist followers are the 'yes people' of the
organizations. They are active at doing the organization's work and
will actively follow orders" (Bjugstad, et al., 2006, p. 310).
Conformists are comfortable in their roles and deviate from overstepping
their boundaries to prevent a hostile, work environment from emerging,
due to their belief that it is counterproductive to the organization
(Collinson, 2006). They are willing to do what it takes to keep their
relationship with the leader; hence they carry out orders without
thinking. They are comfortable with their place in the organization and
their relationship with other organizational members. Conformist
followers rank low on independent and critical thinking but rank high on
active engagement. Although they are efficient when carry out tasks
assigned to them, conformist followers, require constant feedback form
leaders, lack enthusiasm, self-confidence, creativity, courage, and
ambition. Conformists are committed to the organization and trust that
leaders and organization have their best interests at heart. Therefore
they are willing to sacrifice or compromise their own needs to please
As discussed, the leader will definitely influence the followers in
an organization from their thoughts to their actions. However, it is
important to take the follower's contributions into consideration
because it affects their overall performance. In the subsequent
sections, we will identify and analyze the Five Factor Model of
Personality, and later, illustrate how it coincides with the different
2.2 Five Factor Model of Personality
According to Barrick, Parks, and Mount (2005, p. 745),
"personality traits refer to characteristic, enduring patterns of
thought, emotion, and behavior that are stable over time and explain
people's behaviors across different situations." Extensive
research has analyzed the relationship between personality traits and
job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount, and
Judge, 2001) job satisfaction (e.g. Heller, Judge, & Watson, 2002)
and leadership (e.g. Judge and Bono, 2000; Bono and Judge, 2004).
Therefore, since the five-factor model has been able to provide salient
taxonomies in the studies of job performance, job satisfaction,
leadership, etc., it may also be valuable in studying followership.
The Five Factor Model identifies the basic dimensions of
personality, which are Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness,
Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Earlier studies (e.g. Digman,
1990; Goldberg, 1990) have confirmed the validity of the Five Factor
Model and its generalizability. "Evidence supporting a five factor
view of personality has been accumulating, which has led to an emerging
consensus on the taxonomy" (De Hoogh, Hartog, & Koopman, 2005,
p. 841). Previous research has also shown that the Big Five are innate
and stable over time (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Digman, 1989). Although
there is a general consensus and acceptance of the number of factors in
the model, there is a divergence on the exact interpretations and
meaning of the five factors. (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Smith and Canger
(2004) state that the five factor model is vital because:
1. It helps generate eloquent personality taxonomies.
2. It provides an outline/framework for conducting research.
3. It encompasses practically all personality characteristics.
According to Barrick, Parks, and Mount (2005), "Extraverts are
sociable, gregarious, assertive, adventurous, ambitious, and
reward-seeking" (p. 747). Individuals high on this dimension are
usually outgoing, which makes it easier for them to develop
relationships with others. Barry and Stewart (1997) concluded that
extraverts seek stimulation through their social interactions and tend
to exceed job expectations. Generally extraverts are energetic, fast
paced, cheerful, high-spirited and seek stimulation, they require
constant challenges to occupy their time and mind. Extraverts also enjoy
working and tend to make the working environment enjoyable by
socializing and motivating other around them. In assessing the two
dimensions of followership, actively engaged followers display good
people skills, which increase their ability to work well with their
Actively engaged followers are more likely to cherish delegation
from the leaders and have a predisposition to experience positive
affects, hence their energy and passion. Because of their assertiveness
and social skills they are more likely to step in and assume the
leadership role in the absence of the leader. Based on their
meta-analysis of previous research, Judge and Bono (2000) concur that
there is a positive correlation between extraversion and leadership
emergence. However independent and critical thinkers which usually
include alienated followers may avoid sociable situations due to their
cynism which causes them to disassociate themselves from the
organization. They feel that everyone is out to get them and often
prefer to be alone, vigilant and apathetic (Macrae, Costa, and Dolliver,
Hypothesis 1: Extraversion is positively related to actively
Hypothesis 1a: Extraversion is positively related to independent
and critical thinking followers.
Conscientious people are "dependable, hard-working, efficient,
organized, thorough, responsible, persevering, and
achievement-striving" (Barrick, Parks, and Mount, 2005, p.747).
They are intrinsically motivated and do not rely on extrinsic rewards to
perform their jobs well. They are goal-driven and place more emphasis on
completing tasks than individual gain (Stewart, 1996). Conscientious
people play a salient role in self-managed teams by motivating team
members and maintaining the team's focus on assigned tasks (Barrick
and Mount, 1993; Costa and McCrae, 1992). Actively engaged followers are
an asset to both the team and the organization as a whole, due to their
ability to inspire and motivate others. They are an asset to the
organization because they can assume the leadership role when asked to
and they have the courage to challenge authority. Such courageousness is
vital to the organization, especially when followers speak up when they
feel that the leader and/or the organization is losing sight of the
organization's vision and mission. Chaleff (1995) states that
actively engaged followers are "courageous followers who lead from
behind, breathing life into the leader's vision, or even vision
into the leader's life." (p.13). Barrick and Mount (1991)
relates conscientiousness to overall job performance, they infer that
conscientiousness is related to leader effectiveness.
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness is positively related to actively
Hypothesis 2a: Conscientiousness is positively related to
independent and critical followers.
Barrick, Parks, and Mount (2005) describe agreeable individuals as
"courteous, helpful, trusting, cooperative, sympathetic, friendly,
good-natured, and tolerant" (p. 747). McCrae and Costa (1991)
claimed that agreeableness was closely associated to happiness based on
agreeable individuals' ability to establish meaningful
relationships with others. Organ and Lingl (1995) stated
"agreeableness involves getting along with others in pleasant,
satisfying relationships" (p. 340). This trait is commonly
associated with actively engaged followers who exemplify this
personality dimension because they are willing to execute tasks that
promote success of the organization. Independent and critical thinking
followers, on the other hand, tend to be bit distrustful, serious and
hostile, thus they are often less cooperative, friendly and sympathetic
because they critically evaluate every situation or tasks assigned to
them. Independent and critical thinking followers may feel neglected or
ostracized by the organization because of their unwillingness to agree
with every command or task assigned to them. They are more likely to be
resistant of any changes and initiatives the leader or the organization
might suggest. They basically view the organization as a foe and do
whatever they can to get back at the organization every chance they get.
Hypothesis 3: Agreeableness is positively related to actively
Hypothesis 3a: Agreeableness is negatively related to independent
and critical followers.
Neuroticism is commonly associated with apprehension, volatility,
and lack of emotional stability (Goldberg, 1990; Judge, Higgins,
Thoresen, and Barrick, 1999). Neurotic's passive approach, often
leads them to avoid social situations and tend to display deficiencies
when working with others. Because of their pessimistic outlook on life,
they tend to encounter more negative life events (Magnus, Diener,
Fujita, & Pavot, 1993) based in part on their poor decision-making
skills (Emmons, Diener, & Larsen, 1985). These negative events are
more likely to lead neurotics to experience diminished levels of job
satisfaction, work withdrawal and even turnover intentions. According to
Judge et al., (2002), Neuroticism represents the propensity to display
"poor emotional adjustment and experience negative affects, such as
anxiety, insecurity, and hostility." (p. 767) Hogan, Curphy, and
Hogan's (1994) study discovered that individuals high in
neuroticism were unlikely to be leaders or possess leadership qualities.
Individuals who experience high levels of dissatisfaction and negativity
regarding their jobs seemed to do so due to their vulnerability to
pessimistic thinking and emotions (Judge and Locke, 1993). Both
independent and critical followers and actively engaged followers are
expected not to exhibit this personality although actively engaged
followers may be viewed as neurotics because of their willingness to
challenge authority, which can be misconstrued as counterproductive to
Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism is negatively related actively engaged
followers. Hypothesis 4a:
Neuroticism is negatively related independent and critical
2.2.5 Openness to Experience
Openness to experience is defined as "perceptive, imaginative,
cultured, curious, creative, broad-minded, and intelligent"
(Barrick, Parks, and Mount, 2005, p. 748). Individuals high on this
dimension are creative and are more accepting of people from diverse
backgrounds because they are welcoming of new experiences. Both actively
engaged followers and independent and critical followers tend score very
high on this dimension due to their willing to be open to change,
willingness to learn new ideas and concepts that will benefit them and
ultimately the organization. Both types of followers are always actively
seeking new opportunities to improve their expertise and position in the
organization. They are quick to resolve problems that might arise in the
organizations without direction because of their intellectual curiosity
and their tendency to be analytical at all times.
Hypothesis 5: Openness to Experience is positively related to
actively engaged followers.
Hypothesis 5a: Openness to Experience is positively related to
independent and critical
The participants in this study included 95 undergraduate students
at a Southeastern university. Of the 180 surveys that were given out to
students only 120 surveys were returned and of those 120 returned only
95 were fully completed surveys, representing a final response rate of
53%. The participants consisted of approximately 62.1% females and 37.9%
males. The mean age of the 95 participants was 25.5 years (sd = 1.29),
with a range of 18 to 42 years. An overwhelming majority of the
respondents 94.7% were Black/African American, 3.2% were White/Caucasian
and 2.1% were Hispanic/Latino American.
In terms of their academic classification, 61% of the participants
were seniors, 20% were juniors, and 19% were sophomore. Approximately
86.4% of the participants had worked for their present organization for
more than 3 years and 13.6% had worked for less than one year. Basically
all participants in this study were employed and served some
followership role. All participants received extra course credit for
The "Big Five" personality dimensions of neuroticism,
extroversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness will be assessed using the NEO five factor inventory
(NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). The 60-item self-report inventory
yields scores for five broad dimensions of personality, Neuroticism (N),
Extroversion (E), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness
(C). Participants respond to each of the 60 items of the NEO-PI-R using
a 5-point scale (SD= Strongly disagree, SA= Strongly agree). Neuroticism
is described as a tendency to experience anxiety, tension, self-pity,
hostility, impulsivity, self-consciousness, irrational thinking,
depression, and low self-esteem (McCrae & Costa, 1987). An example
of an item is, "I often feel inferior to others". Extraversion
refers to a tendency to be positive, assertive, energetic, social,
talkative, and warm (McCrae & John, 1992). An example of an item is,
"I like to be where the action is".
Openness refers to a tendency to be curious, artistic, insightful,
flexible, intellectual, and original (McCrae & Costa, 1987). An
example of an item is, "I often try new and foreign foods".
Agreeableness refers to the tendency to be forgiving, kind, generous,
trusting, sympathetic, compliant, altruistic, and trustworthy (McCrae
& John, 1992). An example item is, "I generally try to be
thoughtful and considerate". Conscientiousness refers to a tendency
to be organized, efficient, reliable, self-disciplined,
achievement-oriented, rational, and deliberate (McCrae & John,
1992). An example item is, "I have a clear set of goals and work
hard toward them in an orderly fashion". The NEO-FFI will be
utilized because of its rigor and refinement as well as the extensive
evidence that supports its validity.
The Followership questionnaire consists of two follower dimensions
of active engagement and independent and critical thinking (Kelly,
1992). The 20-item self-report survey yields scores based on the two
broad dimensions of followership previously mentioned. Participants were
asked to answer based on how best each question described their
followership type. Participants responded to each of the 20 items of the
Followership questionnaire using a 5-point scale (SD= Strongly disagree,
SA= Strongly agree). The two overall dimensions that encompass
followership styles were based on two aspects, the followers thoughts
and actions. The first dimension consists of followers who are
independent, critical thinkers who consider the impact of their actions
and are willing to be creative and innovative, and may offer criticism
regardless of the consequences of doing so. An example of a question
from the followership questionnaire is, "You assert your views on
important issues even though it may mean conflict with your co-workers
or reprisal from the leader." The second dimension consists of
active followers who take the initiative in decision making and
accomplishing tasks without constant direction or feedback from the
leader. An example of a question from the followership questionnaire is,
"the leader can give you difficult assignments without benefit of
much supervision, knowing that you will meet your deadline with the
highest quality work."
Hypothesis 1 posits a positive relationship between extraversion
and actively engaged followers. The regression analysis found a direct
path coefficient from extraversion to actively engaged followers to be
non-significant (p > .05) and positive. The relationship was
non-significant and the hypothesized direction was positive; therefore
hypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 1a predicted a positive
relationship between independent and critical thinking followers.
Results show that this hypothesis was positive and significant
(p<.01), thus supporting the predictions.
Hypothesis 2, which posits that conscientiousness, is positively
related to actively engaged followers. Results show that the hypothesis
was supported at (p=.000). Similarly, hypothesis 2a also predicted a
positive relationship between conscientiousness and independent critical
followers. The results show that the hypothesis was positive and
significant at (p<.01), illustrating the mutual role that
conscientiousness plays in both actively engaged followers and
independent and critical followers.
Hypothesis 3 posited a positive relationship between agreeableness
and actively engaged followers. The results show that the relationship
was negative and not significant (p>.1); therefore hypothesis 3 was
not supported. This finding is contrary to the notion that agreeableness
is commonly associated with actively engaged followers who exemplify
this personality dimension by their willingness to execute tasks that
promote the success of the organization. Hypothesis 3a predicted a
negative relationship between agreeableness and independent and critical
followers. Results show a negative relationship that was not significant
(p>.1), therefore the hypothesis was not supported.
Hypothesis 4 predicted a negative relationship between neuroticism
and actively engaged followers. The results show a negative relationship
that was not significant (p>.1), therefore this hypothesis was not
supported. Similarly hypothesis 4a posited a negative relation between
neuroticism and independent and critical followers. Results show a
negative but non-significant (p>.1) relationship. Both findings
concerning neuroticism are contrary to previous research that has found
a negative and significant relationship between both actively engaged
followers and independent and critical followers. For example,
individuals who experience high levels of dissatisfaction and negativity
regarding their jobs seemed to do so due to their vulnerability to
pessimistic thinking and emotions (Judge and Locke, 1993). Thus
neurotics are very unlikely to demonstrate any of the behaviors or
characteristics exhibited by either type of followers.
Hypothesis 5 posited a positive relationship to both actively
engaged followers and independent and critical followers. Results also
show positive but non-significant relationship (p>.1) with both types
of followers. These findings are contrary to the general belief that
both types of followers are always actively seeking new opportunities to
improve their expertise and position in the organization. Since they are
quick to resolve problems that might arise in the organizations without
direction because of their intellectual curiosity and their tendency to
be analytical at all times. Table 1 shows how well the variables were
correlated with each other.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Previous research has solely focused on leadership and has in the
process neglected followership by restricting their focus to
followers' perceptions and preferences of exceptional qualities of
leaders. Thus, by looking for good leaders to lead the organization and
assuming that followers will follow any leader, researchers have ignored
the other side of the dynamic relation between leadership and
followership, after all, organizations are comprised of a majority of
their members playing the follower roles. Promoting the effectiveness of
followers requires discarding the notion and misconception that leaders
do all the thinking while followers simply carry out commands. The
importance of cultivating effective followership has increased as
organizations focus on self-managed teams as the central theme to their
mission (Buhler, 1993). Howell and Costley (2001) agree that the
popularity of self-managed teams, performance improvements groups, and
employee ownership programs, all indicate the larger role for followers
in the organization.
This study was attempted to merge the various five factor model of
personality with followership theory as proposed by Kelley (1988). The
main goal was to highlight the saliency of followers' disposition
in the organization. Kelly (1988) emphasizes similarity between
followership and leadership to the multiple roles organization members
play. He expands on this by distinguishing leadership and followership
not by their titles, but by their roles. Hollander (1992) concurred by
stating that the same qualities possessed by good leaders are consistent
with those of good followers. Although, only three of the hypotheses
were supported, this paper addresses the growing importance and need for
researchers to closely examine the link between followership and
The present study is not without limitations; first, this research
utilized cross-sectional data which presents some problems in the
interpretation of the results. For example, since followership is a role
that individuals play in the organizations, how then can we link
followership which can change to personality that is stable over time?
Therefore future researchers need to conduct a longitudinal study and
see if personality is stable over time or if it changes as an individual
adopts a different followership style. Second, this study utilized a
convenience sample of students, which presents inflated predictive
relationships and common method biases to the study due to the use of
self-reported data. This also limits the generalizability of the
results; therefore future research should utilize a non-student sample
like people in organizations serving as followers. In addition future
research should obtain data from multiple sources in order to reduce
bias. Future studies would also benefit from a larger and more diverse
Avolio, B. J., Full Leadership Development: Building Vital Forces
in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1999.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K., "The Big Five Personality
Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis", Personnel
Psychology, Vol. XLIV(1), 1991, 1-27.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K., "Autonomy as a moderator
of the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. LXXVIII, 1993,
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A., "Personality
and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know
and where do we go next?" International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. IX, 2001, 9-30.
Barrick, M. R., Parks, L., Mount, M. K., "Self-monitoring as a
Moderator of the Relationships Between Personality Traits and
Performance", Personnel Psychology, Vol. LVIII (3), 2005, 745
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L., "Composition, process, and
performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality",
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. LXXXII, 1997, 62-78.
Bennis, W., Managing the dream: Reflections on leadership and
change, Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2000.
Bjugstad, K., Thach, E., Thompson, K., & Morris, A., "A
fresh look at followership: A model for matching followership and
leadership styles", Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management,
Vol. VII (3), 2006, 304.
Blackshear, P.B., "The Followership Continuum: A Model for
Fine Tuning the Workforce", Public Manager, Vol. XXXII (2), 2003,
Bono, J. E., Judge T. A., "Personality and Transformational
and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis", Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. LXXXIX (5), 2004, 901-910.
Buhler, P., "The flip side of leadership: Cultivating
followers", Supervision, Vol. LIV (3), 1993, 17-19. Burns, J. M.,
Leadership, New York: Harper & Row, 1978.
Chaleff, I., The courageous follower, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995.
Collinson, D., "Rethinking followership: A Post-structural
Analysis of Follower Identities", Leadership Quarterly, Vol. XVII,
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Charismatic Leadership in
Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., "Personality in Adulthood: A
Six-year Longitudinal Study of Self-reports and Spouse Rating on the NEO
Personality Inventory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. LIV, 1988, 853-863.
Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R. R., The NEO-PI/NEO-FFI manual
supplement. Odessa. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, 1989.
Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R. R., Revised NEO-Personality
Inventory/NEO-Five Factor Inventory professional manual, Odessa. FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.
De Hoogh, A. H., Hartog, D. N., Koopman, P. L., "Linking the
Big Five-Factors of personalities to charismatic and transactional
leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator",
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XXVI (7), 2005, 839.
Digman, J. M., "Five robust traits dimensions: Development,
Stability, and Utility", Journal of Personality, Vol. LVII, 1989,
Digman, J. M., "Personality structure: Emergence of the
Five-Factor Model. In M. R. Rosenweig W. Porter (Eds.). review (vol.
XLI; pp. 417-440). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 1990.
Emmons, R. A., Deiner, E., & Larsen, R. J., "Choice of
situations and congruence models of interactionism", Personality
and Individual Differences, Vol. VI, 1985, 693-702.
Gilbert, R.G., & Hyde A.C., "Followership and the federal
worker", Public Administration Review, Vol. XLVIII, 1988, 962-968.
Goldberg, L. R., "An alternative Description of Personality:
The Big-Five Factor Structure", Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. LIX, 1990, 1216-1229.
Graen, G. B., Uhl-Bien, M., "Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader-member-exchange (LMX) theory over 25
years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective", Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. VI, 1995, 219-247.
Heller, D., Judge, T. A., Watson, D., "The Confounding Role of
Personality and Trait Affectivity in the Relationship between Job and
Life satisfaction", Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. XXIII
(7), 2002, 815.
Helmstetter, S., The self talk solution, New York: Pocket Books,
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., Hogan J., "What we know about
leadership: Effectiveness and personality", American Psychologist,
Vol. XLIX, 1994, 493-504.
Hollander, E. P., "The essential interdependence of leadership
and followership", Current directions in psychological Sciences,
Vol. I, 1992, 71-75.
Hollander, E. P., "Legitimacy, Power and influence: A
perspective on relational features of leadership", In M. M. Chemers
& R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and
directions: 29- 48. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993.
House, R. J., "A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership",
In J. G. Hunt, & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge
(pp. 189-207). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.
Howell, J. M., Shamir, B., "The role of followers in the
charismatic leadership process: relationships and their
consequences", Academy of Management Review, Vol. XXX (1), 2005,
Howell, J. P., & Costley, D. L., Understanding behaviors for
effective leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2001.
Judge, T. A. and Bono, J. E., "Five-factor of personality and
transformation leadership", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
LXXXV (5), 2000, 751.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M.
R., "The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and
career success across life span", Personnel Psychology, Vol. LII,
Judge, T.A. and Locke, E.A., "Effect of dysfunctional thought
processes on subjective well-being and job satisfaction", Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. LXXVIII, 1993, 475-490.
Kelley, R. E., "In praise of followers", Harvard Business
Review, Vol. LXVI (6), 1988, 142.
Kelley, R. E., The power of followership, New York: Doubleday,
Ludin, S., & Lancaster, L., "Beyond leadership ... the
importance of followership", Futurist, Vol. XXIV, 1990, 18-24.
Magnus, K., Diener, E., Futija, F., & Pavot, W.,
"Extraversion and Neuroticism as Predictors of objective life
events: A longitudinal analysis", Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. LXV, 1993, 1046-1053.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T., "Validation of the
five-factor model of personality Across instruments and observers",
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. LII, 1987, 81-90.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., "Adding liebe und arbeid: The
full Five Factor and well being", Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. XVII, 1991, 227-232.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., and Dolliver, R. H., "The NEO
Personality Inventory: Using the Five-Factor Model in Counseling",
Journal of Counseling and Development, Vol. LXIX (4), 1991, 367-372.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P., "An introduction to the
five-factor model and its applications. Special Issue: the five-factor
model: issues and applications", Journal of Personality, Vol. LX,
Nelson, B., Please don't just do what I tell you, New York:
Organ, D. W., Lingel, A., "Personality, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behavior", Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. CXXXV, 1995, 339-350.
Smith, M. A. and Canger, J. M., "Effects of Supervisor
"Big Five" Personality on Subordinate Attitudes". Journal
of Business and Psychology, Vol. XVIII (4), 2004, 465-481.
Stewart, G. L., "Reward structure as a moderator of the
relationship between extraversion and sales performance", Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. LXXX1, 1996, 619-627.
Williams, G.A., & Miller, R.B., "Change the way you
persuade", Harvard Business Review, Vol. LXXX, 2002, 65-73.
Shingirayi M. Mushonga, Jackson State University, Jackson,
Christopher G. Torrance, Jackson State University, Jackson,
Mr. Shingirayi M. Mushonga earned his MBA at Western Kentucky
University in 2004. Currently, he is a management doctoral student at
Jackson State University.
Mr. Christopher G. Torrance earned his MBA at Morgan State
University in 2004. Currently, he is a management doctoral student at
Jackson State University.
TABLE 1: CORRELATIONS
Variables 1 2 3 4
1. NEU 1.00
2. EXT -.013 1.00
3. OPE .004 .364 ** 1.00
4. AGR .324 ** -.258 * -.322 ** 1.00
5. CON -.011 .397 ** .280 ** -.362 **
6. FIT -.037 .460 ** .314 ** -.226 *
7. FAE -.070 .346 ** .243 * -.181
Variables 5 6 7
5. CON 1.00
6. FIT .449 ** 1.00
7. FAE .466 ** .743 ** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).