ArticlePDF Available

What Is Toxic Followership?

Authors:
  • United States Army Command and General Staff College

Abstract

There has been some discussion on the subject of toxic followership, but it is as yet ill-defined and deserves further evaluation and study. The current paper examines toxic followership using Kelley's typology of followers and provides potential methods of mitigating toxic followership. Just as toxic leaders harm organizations, so too can toxic followers. They both can cause good people to leave an organization, and put the organization's survival at risk.
What is Toxic Followership?
Ted A. Thomas, Kevin Gentzler, and Robert Salvatorelli
There has been some discussion on the subject of toxic followership, but it is as yet ill-defined. This
paper combines Kelley’s (1988) ground-breaking followership typology with Reed’s (2004)
definition of toxic leadership to provide a basis for categorizing different aspects of toxic
followership and to explore potential methods for mitigation.
Reed (2004) defined toxic leadership as containing three elements:
1. The leader has a lack of concern for subordinates or peers.
2. The leader has a negative effect on the climate through his actions or style.
3. The leader is self-serving and concerned about his own welfare over that of the organization.
Robert Kelley (1988), an authoritative and often quoted author in followership literature (see also
Crossman & Crossman, 2011), organizes followers into five categories: effective, survivors, sheep,
alienated, and yes-people. As described by Kelley (1992), all of these followers can be useful to the
organization. However, differing circumstances can cause some of these follower types to become
toxic.
Effective
According to Kelley (1992), effective followers are thinkers who are active and provide positive
energy for their leaders and organization. Effective followers are self-managing, committed to the
organization and its purpose, competent, courageous, honest, and credible. They are the go-getters,
risk takers, and problem solvers. Effective followers are well-balanced, responsible adults who can
succeed without strong leadership, and as such, are not prone to toxic followership.
Survivors
Kelley (1992) describes survivors as followers who are able to survive change. They are constantly
checking the environment to determine how best to adapt. They could be compared to a chameleon
that changes its colors to survive. A survivor can become toxic by influencing the leader to do evil.
Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, was influenced by toxic followers to condone acts of
brutality to stay in power. After Mugabe lost the presidential election, his military chief, Gen.
Constantine Chiwenga, pressured Mugabe to hold a runoff presidential election. During the three-
month preparation for the runoff the military killed, injured, and displaced thousands of opposition
supporters under the code name CIBD (coercion, intimidation, beating, and displacement). Not
surprisingly, Mugabe won the runoff election, enabling his supporters to retain their positions of
power and wealth (Timberg, 2008).
In the case above, Mugabe’s followers were concerned about themselves, their wealth and power,
were willing to ensure Mugabe’s continued leadership by using brutality and murder, showed a lack
of concern for the general populace, and created a negative environment for most of the country,
thereby fulfilling all three of Reed’s (2004) criteria. In President Mugabe’s case, his followers could
be classified as toxic survivors who changed their political environment to maintain their status
(Timberg, 2008).
Alienated
Kelley (1992) defines alienated followers as those who are good critical thinkers and can act
independently without being told what to do, but are disgruntled and have lost faith in their leaders
or the system. They have negative energy in their organization. They quietly go along with the
leader’s guidance, usually not in open opposition.
Boswell (2015) defines toxic, alienated followers as those who actively seek an audience with
others to undermine and disrupt the leader’s efforts. Common terms for this type of activity might
be called gossiping, faultfinding, or backbiting. He distinguishes between an effective follower, who
may disagree with the leader and yet still works to move the mission forward, and an alienated
follower who works to undermine the leader and the mission.
Bradley Manning is an example of a toxic alienated follower who was dissatisfied with the Army.
He decided to expose government actions he felt were not in keeping with his vision of the US
(Goodman, 2013). He actively sought to expose his organization.
Using Reed’s (2004) definition of toxic leadership, the alienated toxic follower shows signs of all
three characteristics; self-serving, having a negative effect on the climate, and lacking concern for
the welfare of the organization. The main difference between Kelley’s (1988) and Boswell’s (2015)
model of alienated followers is that Boswell defines this follower as active in their resistance to
undermine the leader, whereas Kelley defines the follower as passive.
Sheep
The third type of toxic follower can arise from what Kelley describes as sheep-a follower who is
uncritical in their thinking, lacks initiative, and will not take responsibility. Sheep do what they are
told, but no more, and are dependent on the leader (Kelley, 1988).
This type of follower becomes toxic when they know they are doing evil, but refuse to take
responsibility for their actions. The Holocaust is a clear example of this type of toxic followership.
The German administrators of this destruction were efficient and responsible for carrying out their
orders and directives. They ranged from lawyers, doctors, train engineers, accountants, to other
professionals who contributed to killing six million Jews and many others, even if they did not
directly put them into the gas chambers or pull the trigger. They were ordinary people, filling
ordinary roles, performing extraordinary acts of destruction and evil, packaged in socially
acceptable and appropriate jobs (Adams, 2009).
Adams and Balfour (2009), who describe it as administrative evil, claim this type of toxic
followership is ubiquitous in large, complex organizations. Because this form of toxicity convinces
the follower they are supporting the organization, we are all potentially guilty or susceptible to
becoming toxic sheep. This definition identifies the toxic follower as self-serving and demonstrating
a lack of concern for others and, in the long run, this type of follower has an adverse effect on the
organization and on society.
Yes-Men
Yes-men are similar to sheep in that they blindly follow and execute whatever the boss wants
(Kelley, 1992), but they also enthusiastically support the boss’ orders. They become toxic when
emulating a toxic leader. If the organization rewards the toxic leader with promotions and
responsibility, some followers may see this behavior as a way to get ahead. Toxic leaders may
reward those who are most like themselves since leaders tend to give higher performance ratings to
those who exhibit the behaviors they espouse (Kelley, 2008).
Toxic leaders may also have been toxic followers, just waiting for a chance to lead as those whom
they admired have led. One example of a toxic yes-man was Sergeant Evan Vela, sentenced to 10
years in jail for shooting an unarmed Iraqi man. A taxi driver named al-Janabi and his son stumbled
into Vela’s sniper hide-out. Vela’s squad leader ordered Vela to shoot al-Janabi. Vela shot him in the
head with his pistol and later lied about it. He easily and quickly followed orders to murder an
innocent civilian (Moore, 2008).
Looking at a bigger picture, this yes-man type of toxic follower shows a lack of recognition or
concern for society. By trying to please their boss to get ahead, they have effectively put aside any
personal moral or ethical restraints.
Reducing Toxic Followership
These examples identified different types of toxic followers. There are several methods of reducing
the influence of toxic followers in the workplace.
One method is to reduce toxic leadership. This eliminates the role model and shows that the poor
behavior of the toxic leader is unacceptable. Reducing toxic leadership may be the best method to
reduce levels of toxic survivors, sheep, and yes-men in an organization. If the role model or
protector no longer exists, the toxic follower is forced to change. Limiting interaction with a toxic
leader supplants the negative behavioral examples by positive ones for the sheep and yes-men to
emulate, and a different protector for the survivor to align.
Another method of reducing toxic followership is by directly confronting the troublesome
behaviors. According to Kelley (1992), identification of problem behaviors makes followers aware
of the situation. By holding the follower accountable for their behavior, improvement, and increased
self-awareness, two possible results emerge. Either the toxic follower will change their behavior or
they will voluntarily leave. Developing awareness in toxic followers is possibly the best solution to
the toxic follower identified as the yes-man. Yes-men may not be aware of their actions and may
consider themselves as good followers (Kelley, 2008). By encouraging the development of self-
awareness, the follower becomes more cognizant of their surroundings and the way their actions are
perceived by fellow members of the organization.
Peer reviews and 360 degree surveys are methods to reveal and support the development of toxic
followers. Peers have a special responsibility because they are often the closest to the person and
can identify and deal with the problems at the earliest stages. Peers who take personal responsibility
for identifying and holding toxic followers accountable for their behavior help establish a culture
where toxic behavior is not tolerated. Peer policing requires moral courage since confrontation is
necessary in these actions.
Organizations influence their culture through whom they hire, promote, and fire. They indoctrinate
new members of their organization through their onboarding process and through the culture
established within the organization. A culture that promotes and supports calling out bad behavior in
peers provides a clear example of norms for people to follow.It quickly becomes obvious if people
are not aligned with a strong organizational culture that discourages such behavior.
A final method of reducing toxic followership is to develop organizational commitment (Bjugstad,
Thach, Thompson & Morris, 2006). This approach is most applicable for those who are alienated
followers and best used when an alienated follower has not yet crossed over to active subversion.
Alienated followers commitment is based on what motivates them the most (Bjugstad, et al. 2006).
A method of improving organizational commitment is through changing motivations by improving
the relationship between the leader and the follower and attempting to align personal characteristics
when possible (Bjugstad, et al. 2006). Gaining organizational commitment from alienated followers
will encourage others to develop better relationships and improve commitment across the
organization.
In some cases encouraging organizational commitment may not work. If a follower is alienated to
the point of active subversion, however, the leader may have no choice but to fire them. This is
appropriate when the core mission of the organization is in peril due to the alienated follower’s
conduct. Once the person is fired, the rest of the organization must be made aware of the reason
behind the action to eliminate any false information and rumors. The key is to establish a culture
that does not tolerate toxic followership, supports the mission, and encourages followers to reach
their potential (Blackshear, 2004).
Along with reducing and eliminating toxic followership, an organization should develop effective
followers. Kelley (2008) recommends four different means. The first is to redefine followership and
leadership. Traits that make great leaders are the same ones that make great followers (Hurwitz &
Hurwitz, 2009). People need to be trained in these skills and shown by example the role of a good
follower, as our leaders execute that role from time to time. The second is to hone followership
skills by improving critical thinking, emphasizing self-management, aligning with organizational
goals, and acting responsibly with others in the organization. Third is to conduct good performance
evaluations and give appropriate feedback. Leaders should rate followers on their followership
skills, not just their leadership skills. These evaluations can come from peers, subordinates,
superiors, and self. Last is to build organizational structures to encourage followership. Kelley
recommends having leaderless groups, rotating leaders, delegating to the lowest level possible, and
rewarding good followership.
Conclusion
Toxic followership is an issue that has not been adequately addressed in leadership or followership
literature. Toxic followers can and do harm organizations. They drive away good people, put the
organization’s survival at risk, and endanger society. It is a topic that demands attention.

Unmasking Administrative Evil
 !""#
$%&'() *%)+),
-,).%)$%)/)%0The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation
Journal, #123!""42526
)7*%'8)() 99%++%:7Mildenhall Air
Force News/;6!"2<
%% ==))==% :)>2!?44#?<4
@,%A%').;%*' AB)&(
%() %),() ) %0
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, C1?3?"45?22?2??2#
*D+7'-E+*(--97THE FOLLOWERSHIP EXCHANGE=
/;<!"2<%% ==) ! ;== ,=2!4F!2<6='-E+*
(--9
*B*7* %)),() 5/)%
)%%7LeadershipC41!"2234F25#C)2"22CC=2C4!C2<"22426F#2
)%)5,%)9)7G %/),%
;7Popular Mechanics!"2?B!?!"26
%% ==  )=))%=#"F2=55/5;5
),5;5%5;52<<C44#"=
..B&), )
*%),9)%;'H)%()%')0!!
!"2?2#!"26
%% ==,=!"2?=?=2!=;I),I I)II%
H)%.%H)%.7'%($%!7
Industrial and Commercial Training Ind and Commercial Training4241!""#3
2##5!"6
A;%7+$)(7Harvard Business Review2#FF
BC!"26%% ==;,=2#FF=22=)5 )551'));%
AJ,;),%)/,),%)),)% %)) %)%
, ,H)%)%)2##!;'J2##! )%
),,)J!""F;)%),%)D3
A;%7+$)(7+Military Leadership: In Pursuit of Excellence
9%/)$2##!
A;%7%)),() 7+The Art of Followership: How Great
Followers Create Great Leaders and Organizations()B5
!""F
A;%The Power of Followership: How to Create Leaders People Want
to Follow, and Followers Who Lead Themselves;=*
2##!
7+%2"5%)A)),G+K)7The New
York Times!""F(;!!!"26
%% ==%)=!""F="!=22==)%=22) %:I>"
,7'8)) 7Military ReviewB2!""4
,')Toxic Leadership in the U.S. Military$%
!"2<
');,*),&+),;JL)%*0'9),%$%B<
!""F2#!"26%% ==),% %= 5
=%%=%)=!""F="C="4=!""F"C"4"!CC2%
... For patients, nurses report more adverse events, nursing quality is poor [12,13], and patient satisfaction decreases [14]. For organizations, it may put the nursing profession in a difcult position since it has been shown to negatively impact organizational performance [6], cause team relationship conficts [15], generate a toxic organizational culture, and even legitimize harmful leadership behavior [16]. Te negative impact is often greater than the positive impact; even the actual or potential dangers brought by low-level toxic leadership cannot be ignored. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aim. The aim of this study is to analyse the toxic leadership behavior of nurse managers perceived by nurses and its related factors. Background. Toxic leadership is becoming more common as a risk factor in nursing. However, there is a scarcity of research on the elements that influence toxic leadership practices from the perspective of nurses’ perceptions. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 455 nurses from August to October 2022. A demographic information questionnaire and a negative behavior scale for nurse managers were used. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal–Wallis H test or Mann–Whitney U test, and multiple linear regression were used to explore the relevant factors of nurses’ perceived toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers. Results. The population was dominated by 423 (92.97%) females, 318 (69.89%) married, and 420 (92.31%) with a bachelor’s degree. The toxic leadership behavior scale score for nurse managers was 109 (87, 123) and the score for each entry was (2.94 ± 0.92). Gender, educational level, department, number of night shifts, and nature of employment were the influencing factors of the negative leadership behavior of nurse leaders as perceived by nurses ( P < 0.05), explaining a total of 43.1% of the total variance. Conclusion. In general, nurses’ perceived toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers were at a moderate level. More toxic leadership behaviors were observed by nurses who were female, less educated, on busy units, with unstable nature of appointments, and with frequent night shift rotation. Implications for Nursing Management. Focus on the psychological condition of nurses who are female, less educated, work in busy units, have an unstable nature of employment, and rotate night shifts frequently. The negative impacts of toxic leadership behaviors might be lessened as a result.
... Thirty years later, it is still being used (e.g., Thomas et al., 2017). The model was subsequently expanded by Kelly (1992Kelly ( , 2008 and Boswell (2015). ...
Article
Full-text available
Destructive leadership has been thoroughly described in the literature. As the term itself indicates, destructive leadership is a leadership style that violates the well‐being or job satisfaction of subordinates, and destroys value for the organization directly, or through less motivated and effective employees. Despite such negative effects, some members might prosper from it and may even support destructive leadership. Worse, sometimes destructive leaders are promoted. If the organization rewards destructive leaders with promotions and responsibility, followers may see these behaviors as a way to get ahead and destructive behavior can become a part of the organizational culture. The literature still reports increased turnover intentions. In the current article, the consequences of destructive leadership on leaders and followers are examined. Specifically, destructive leadership is examined through a literature review and by using Gresham's law as an analogy. Gresham's law states that “bad money drives out good money,” and the current article demonstrates that a Gresham‐tendency can also be observed for leaders under certain circumstances. Thus, the current study converts Gresham's law into a conceptual model for the evolution of destructive leadership in organizations. The proposed model qualitatively describes how various types of destructive leaders influence the organization under certain circumstances.
... Second, the negative consequences for nurses who experience toxic leadership can detrimentally affect organizational culture and stability. Fear begets fear (Indradevi, 2016), and toxic leadership begets toxic followers, creating a self-perpetuating toxic work culture (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2017;Thomas et al., 2016). Moreover, silence born of fear stifles innovation, productivity and quality (Mehta & Maheshwari, 2014) as staff expend energy on minimizing the impact of the toxic leader instead of working to achieve organizational goals (Xu et al., 2015). ...
... Existing research describes types of destructive behaviour, including incompetence, paranoia, narcissism and ego, but offers very little explanation as to the cause of these behaviours (Lipman-blumen, 2011; Thomas et al., 2016;Thoroughgood et al., 2018Thoroughgood et al., , 2012b. This field research demonstrates that leaders with low self-awareness exhibit behaviours consistent with destructive leadership and aspects of toxic leadership, providing a possible antecedent for negative leadership behaviours. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose: Leadership research demands an understanding of what constitutes effective leadership. Self-awareness is described as critical for effective leadership, yet there is little research dealing with the link between a lack of self-awareness in leaders and destructive leadership. The prevalence of destructive leadership is surprisingly common and bears a high cost to organisations in terms of employee turnover, absenteeism and decreased productivity. The emotional toll it takes on employees is severe and affects their well-being and identification with the organisation. Design/methodology/approach: A qualitative, exploratory approach was used to gain insights into the role that self-awareness plays in effective leadership and how a lack thereof affects employee engagement and behaviour. Data were collected through semi structured interviews with executives who had experience of working for a manager with low self-awareness. Thematic analysis was then conducted to identify the main themes found in the data. Findings/results: This study found that leaders with low self-awareness exhibit behaviours consistent with toxic and destructive leadership. Negative effects on subordinates were felt in terms of employee engagement and increased resistance to the leader occurred. Subordinates then engaged in retaliatory and deviant work behaviour as a result. Practical implications: A model for conceptualising how self-awareness results in destructive leadership and its influence on followers’ behaviours and attitudes emerged, enabling an improved understanding of this organisational behavioural phenomenon. Originality/value: Literature is limited on self-awareness even though more research is being carried out on destructive leadership. The research has implications for how talent management is conducted within organisations.
... As to patients, the incidence of nurse-reported adverse events increased, such as medical errors (Lyu et al., 2019) and the decline in care quality (Labrague, 2021). To the organization, the reduced organizational performance and the emergence of toxic followers can lead to the breeding of negative organizational culture (Thomas et al., 2016). The existence of the toxic leadership behaviours of nurse managers is widely concerned. ...
Article
Full-text available
Aim: To explore the perceptions of Chinese registered nurses on toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers and to determine its type, cause, and response measures. Background: The nurse manager is the front-line leader of the nurses who provide services directly to patients. Previous evidence suggests that toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers do exist, and it is necessary to understand the specifics of it. Methods: We used phenomenological research methods to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews among 12 nurses at a tertiary hospital in Wuhan over the period from January to March 2022. And the data were analyzed using Colaizzi 7-step analysis method. Results: Four themes were discovered: (a) nurses' perceptions of toxic leadership behaviors; (b) toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers; (c) reasons for toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers; (d) measures for toxic leadership behaviors of nurse managers. Conclusion: Chinese nurses are exposed to the toxic leadership of nurse managers for multiple reasons and respond differently. Implications for nursing management: This study helps nursing managers identify which behaviors are harmful to the nurse which require special attention in developing strategies to buffer against nurse managers' toxic leadership.
... Alienated followers bring negative energy to the team and can eventually become toxic followers, actively subverting the team and driving away good people. 21 Conformist, passive and alienated follower types can also often lead to the onset of groupthink which can be a detriment in patient care. Passive followers go along with the flow and agree with what appears to be the consensus. ...
Article
Introduction Leadership is accepted as a crucial component of effective working within teams. Followership’s contribution to successful performance is increasingly recognised but understudied. This study evaluated followership levels in military doctors at different stages of their careers and made recommendations for how followership concepts can be used to develop the self and better understand the challenges of small team working. Methods A self-report study in which Kelley’s followership questionnaire was distributed to 64 military doctors in three cohorts. 53 results were assessed using Kelley’s followership framework. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to look at differences depending on service, age, gender and career stage. Results The study demonstrated a predominant exemplary followership style within military doctors. No statistical difference was identified at the 0.05 level in followership by career stage, age, gender or service in the sample group. Conclusion This study gives insight into the attributes of doctors within the Defence Medical Services and laid out a methodology for further cohort evaluations of followership. It made recommendations on the areas of the field that require further research and how followership concepts may be included in further development courses and reporting for military medical personnel.
Article
The complex nature of today's global organization has led to the adoption of rotational leadership programs to ensure leaders have the necessary skills to succeed in a global landscape. However, this strategy fails to account for what happens to organizational followers when leaders are rotated to new positions. This research aimed to explore followers' experiences when exposed to rotating leadership. A sequential explanatory research mixed‐methods design was used to identify the types of followers in the global organization and their perceptions of this leadership phenomenon. Phase 1 collected data from 302 members of a global organization and identified participants by follower type. Phase 2 included semi‐structured interviews with 29 participants identified in Phase 1 and explored the followers' lived experiences when subjected to frequent changes in leadership. This study advances previous research that explores employee behavior and organizational change and presents new findings about follower perceptions of frequent leadership changes. First, this study found that followers exposed to fewer leaders were more likely to identify themselves as exemplary followers. Second, the perceptions and experiences of rotating leadership varied by follower type. Third, this study found varying perceptions among followers when compared by job function but found frustration the most common among all follower types and job functions. Finally, regardless of type or job function, all followers shared negative experiences and effects of the leadership rotation phenomenon. Based on these results, we discuss theoretical and practical implications for the global organization and offer recommendations for practice and continued exploration.
Chapter
Every leader has a different leadership style and communication approach in an organizational setting. Each style and model of interaction enables a different level of follower involvement. Studies show that followers carry more decision-making power than prior decades and play an active role in influencing leaders and organizations. However, not all followers are good or beneficial for the organization. The chapter proposes a three-step plan to mitigate risk caused by followers that are toxic to a leader or the health of an organization. The steps involve identifying the difference between good and bad followers, understanding types of toxic followers and the degree of risk they pose, and adopting communication strategies to alleviate the peril that toxic followers can create.
Article
Toxic giftedness is giftedness that is used for negative and even harmful ends. The field of giftedness has not been quick to recognize the importance to society of toxic giftedness, and its responsibility to combat it. This article defines the concept of toxic giftedness. Then it discusses two manifestations of toxic giftedness: gifted toxic leadership and gifted toxic followership. Toxic leaders and toxic followers are of different kinds. Some toxic leaders intend to do harm; others do so inadvertently. Toxic followers look out for their own interests at the expense of others’ interests. They may be oblivious, ingratiators, loyalists, or True Believers. Educators of the gifted have a responsibility in current times to do more to combat toxic giftedness and to do whatever they can to ensure that giftedness is used in ways to make the world better, not worse.
Article
Full-text available
This case is based on shocking narrative of Anuradha, a disgruntled employee working as Talent Acquisition Executive in a mid-sized staffing company having its corporate office in Gurugram. Anuradha was working in the company for last three years. This was her first job after graduating with an MBA degree from a private university in Haryana. She had specialized in HR and getting the job of Talent Acquisition Executive with a decent compensation package was a dream come true. She had got the job offer through campus placement and she wanted to leverage this opportunity to prove her worth as a thorough professional. She was performing well in her job and won the best employee of the year for two consecutive years. Just before completing her third year in the company, she became inflicted with Covid-19. She was on long leave for three months. When she got back to work, the scenario at the office was different. There was a new team leader in Anuradha's department who was about to make her life hell. Anuradha faced discrimination which wrecked her sense of wellbeing and she almost decided to quit her job. This case study provides deep insights about how some of the toxic leaders can damage the morale of star performers and demotivate the entire team so much so that productivity takes a back seat.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
Followership has been an understudied topic in the academic literature and an underappreciated topic among practitioners. Although it has always been important, the study of followership has become even more crucial with the advent of the information age and dramatic changes in the workplace. This paper provides a fresh look at followership by providing a synthesis of the literature and presents a new model for matching followership styles to leadership styles. The model's practical value lies in its usefulness for describing how leaders can best work with followers, and how followers can best work with leaders.
Article
Article
The importance of promoting and developing exemplary followers is the underlying position of this article. The article re-positions followership and defends the importance of exemplary followers. Followership stages are presented and explained as being situational and dependent on external and internal variables. These stages are described within a model for measuring workforce performance level—the Followership Continuum. The article explains that focusing on assessing and developing the highest followership stages of the Followership Continuum provides a diagnostic and prescriptive approach for improving workforce productivity. The article highlights preliminary research that is used to confirm followership concepts presented by the author.
Article
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to progress beyond Part 1, in which the research on followership was surveyed, showing it has significant practical importance in enhancing career and organizational value. Part 2 aims to present a comprehensive framework to understand followership and clarify how and where followership is different (and the same) as leadership. It seeks to show how previous research fits into this new framework, as well as highlighting gaps and opportunities. Part 3 aims to present examples of how this model can used as a training tool, in mentoring, for performance appraisals, and for designing HR solutions. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a new framework for followership, articulates its features, and puts it into the context of previous ideas about followership. Findings – There are real and important differences between leadership and followership. Some attributes and characteristics are unique to good followers while others, such as intelligence are generally applicable to all employees. Finally, followership can be understood as two separate competencies: leader support and personal manageability, which refer to situation-specific and generic followership behaviours respectively. Practical implications – The three articles are of particular interest to senior executives and HR departments. Originality/value – This paper presents a new way of understanding followership, and of putting it into perspective with leadership. As such, the three articles are of particular interest to senior executives and HR departments.
The Followership Exchange
  • I Chaleff
Mildenhall Air Force News
  • M Boswell
Toxic followers.The Followership Exchange
  • I Chaleff
G.I. gets 10-year sentence in killing of unarmed Iraqi.The New York Times
  • S Moore