Sign up

Assessing the relationship between followership and the big five factor model of personality.
Subject:
Job satisfaction (Social aspects)
Job satisfaction (Surveys)
Publishing industry (Surveys)
Publishing industry (Social aspects)
Authors:
Mushonga, Shingirayi M.
Torrance, Christopher G.
Pub Date:
11/01/2008
Publication:
Name: Review of Business Research Publisher: International Academy of Business and Economics Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Business, international Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2008 International Academy of Business and Economics ISSN: 1546-2609
Issue:
Date: Nov, 2008 Source Volume: 8 Source Issue: 6
Topic:
Event Code: 290 Public affairs Computer Subject: Publishing industry
Product:
Product Code: 2700020 Publishing; 2700000 Printing & Publishing NAICS Code: 511 Publishing Industries SIC Code: 2711 Newspapers; 2721 Periodicals; 2731 Book publishing; 2741 Miscellaneous publishing

Accession Number:
190699966
Full Text:
ABSTRACT

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, NEO-PI-R

1. INTRODUCTION

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' (p. 304).

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 from leadership.

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 the organization.

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 followership styles.

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.

2.2.1 Extraversion

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 co-workers.

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, 1991).

Hypothesis 1: Extraversion is positively related to actively engaged followers.

Hypothesis 1a: Extraversion is positively related to independent and critical thinking followers.

2.2.2 Conscientiousness

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 engaged followers.

Hypothesis 2a: Conscientiousness is positively related to independent and critical followers.

2.2.3 Agreeableness

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 engaged followers.

Hypothesis 3a: Agreeableness is negatively related to independent and critical followers.

2.2.4 Neuroticism

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 the organization.

Hypothesis 4: Neuroticism is negatively related actively engaged followers. Hypothesis 4a:

Neuroticism is negatively related independent and critical followers.

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

followers.

3. METHOD

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 participation.

3.1 Measures

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."

4. RESULTS

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 personalities.

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 sample.

REFERENCES:

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, 111-118.

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, 25.

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, 2006, 179-189.

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, 195-214.

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, 1998.

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, 96-112.

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, 1999, 621-652.

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, 1992.

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, 1992, 175-215.

Nelson, B., Please don't just do what I tell you, New York: Hyperion, 2001.

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, Mississippi, USA

Christopher G. Torrance, Jackson State University, Jackson, Mississippi, USA

AUTHOR PROFILES:

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

1. NEU
2. EXT
3. OPE
4. AGR
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).
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.