The influence of followership on organizational identification and the mitigating effect of communication climate

The Influence of Followership on Organizational Identification

and the Mitigating Effect of Communication Climate

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Communication

Corporate Communication

Hyunsu Lee

Thesis supervisor: Pernill van der Rijt

Abstract

Today’s workplaces are in need of employees who are proactively engaged in leadership process and bring fresh ideas to organizations. With devolution from leaders to followers, the importance of followership has been widely acknowledged by organizations. The study aims to investigate to what extent does followership influence on organizational identification directed by communication climate and how does network centrality influence the relationship between followership and communication climate. Kelley’s (1992) research emphasizes the proactive role of followers and defines its behavioral characteristics, which form effective followers; active engagement and independent critical thinking. The two dimensions of effective followers are associated with organizational identification, which is partially mediated by communication climate. Network centrality is positively related with communication climate while the interaction effect of followership and network centrality on perceived communication was not statistically significant. The paper suggests new insights on organizational management and provides a foundation for future research.

Keywords: Followership, active engagement, communication climate, organizational

- 1 -

The influence Followership in Organizations

Recently, we have observed an increasing number of organizations focusing on followership of individual employees. Workplaces are in need of employees who are proactively engaged in solving corporate issues regardless of roles or positions (Howell & Shamir, 2005). Organizations seek for employees who are willing to bring fresh ideas, suggest new perspectives to organizations and consider the proactivity of employees as essential assets for organization to move forward (Shamir, 2007). While leadership theories have been caught attention in past years, the academic and practical focus on leaders have been gradually shifted to the followers, as well as to the influence of followers and its outcomes in organizations. Academic and practical focus on leaders have been gradually shifted to its followers, employees in organizations, and how effective followers have impact on organizations.

In precious leadership studies, researchers generally concentrated on leaders and the impact that these leaders have on their subordinates (Collinson, 2006). Employees have been often considered as recipients of the leader's influence, rather following leaders’ decisions to assist leader’s visions (Heller & Til, 1982). Followership has been valued as capability of employees to support leaders and effectively follow the ordered instructions to maximize efficiency of organizations (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson & Morris, 2006). In previous research, Followership has been defined as contribution of employees to follow the leaders’ decisions and pursue directions designed by leaders (McClosky, Hoffmann & O'Hara, 1960).

However, there has been observed a shift of the perspective in followership recently. A number of studies shed a light on new definition of followership such that followers should be more understood as one type of organizational role and must be viewed as partners of leaders (Potter, Rosenbach & Pittman, 1996). The sweeping view of organizational mechanism suggests that the impact of followers becomes the source of social influence on

- 2 -

leaders and organizations (Oc & Bashshur, 2013). It emphasizes the followers’ beliefs and thoughts as antecedents playing integral part of the leadership process. Leadership is operationalized as perceptions (Bligh & Schyns, 2007).

The shift of view is based on realization of leadership as a process, which is created by the perception of followers and their social interaction with people in organizations (Fairhurst & Uhl-Bien, 2012). Leadership can be exerted only when there are followers and following behaviors to support the leadership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014), as there is no leader without followers. Since followership and following behaviors of followers are the critical antecedent to complete leadership process (Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012; Shamir, 2007), understanding of followership needs to be preceded to understand leadership.

The significance of followership is likely to have positive influence on organizational outcomes. New concept of followership suggests that followers are more seen as co-contributors by taking an active and participative role in organizations (Baker & Gerlowski, 2007). According to Kelley (1992), effective followers are likely to be more active and engaged in organizational matters and more efficient in critical thinking. Employees with high level of followership are likely to be more proactive in committing themselves to the organization, its missions and the people in organizations (Kelley, 1988). Moreover, effective followers are considered to manage themselves and maintain their competence with knowing where they put their effort. Effective followers maintain interdependent relationship with leaders to achieve communal purposes (Rost, 1993).

Organizational identification refers to the degree to which individual employees put importance on their organizations (Albert, Ashforth & Dutton, 2000; Efraty & Wolfe, 1988). Effective followers are more likely to identify themselves as a part of an organization and feel much belongingness due to their proactivity exerted in organizations. Looking across the literature on organizational identification, followership may encourage employees to identify

- 3 -

themselves organizations. Organizational identification is one form of social identification, which is defined as individuals’ membership to a particular organization (Mael & Tetrick, 1992). Effective followers tend to be highly involved in the job and commit themselves to the organizations they belong. As job involvement and organizational commitment are strongly correlated with organizational identification (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986), the proactive behavior characteristics of effective followers will be strongly related to high organizational identification. Previous research shows strong organizational identification is highly likely to lead employees to form positive attitudes towards the organization (Dutton, Dukerich & Harquail, 1994), to be satisfied with their jobs more and do extra more work (Riketta & van Dick, 2005). Due to these benefits for organization, the corporate interest in organizational identification (van Dick, Wagner, Stellmacher & Christ, 2004) and followership as it promotes organizational identification.

Furthermore, employees with high level of followership may involve communicating with their colleagues more frequently to make critical remarks and to collaborate in order to have tasks successfully done. Proactive behavior characteristics may encourage them to experience a more empowering communication climate (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson & Morris, 2006). Also employees who make creative critiques are often seen as whom are helpful for the team and organization (Oldham & Cummings, 1996), which enable them have more opportunity to have a say. When employees feel empowered and accepted with their opinions, it may encourage followers to be more participative in leadership processes and tasks (Collinson, 2006), which could lead to high self-identification towards the organizations. Previous research argues that communication plays an increasingly vital role to encourage employees to be more dedicated (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2010) and involved in the organizations (Shadur, Kienzle & Rodwell, 1999). Participative communication climate is suggested to influence organizational identification of employees (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel,

- 4 -

2001). The literature review suggests that communication climate within organizations is likely to play important role in explaining the influence of followership on organizational outcomes.

The employees with followership behaviors can benefit when they obtaining larger network with higher network centrality in organizations (Lee & Tsang, 2001). Interpersonal communication and interaction may lead employees to be positioned of the center of the network. Effective followers are often engaged in active social interaction. The behavioral characteristics of effective followers influence them to be proactive in their network in organizations and high network centrality of individual employee has is more likely to lead higher chances of identifying themselves with organizations (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). Hence, employees’ network centrality in organizations may become a factor to influence the degree organizational identification (Jones & Volpe, 2011).

Moreover, the current study argues that network centrality may influence the relationship of followership with organizational identification. Network centrality refers to the degree of importance put on individuals within a certain network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Tsai, 2000). Network centrality may affect employees with effective followership characteristics to be more participative and open to interpersonal communication. Employees will feel more taken seriously when they are positioned to be in the center of the network (Carrière & Bourque, 2009). Proactive followers are often engaged in active social interaction. Active engagement behavior of employees may influence them to be proactive in communication, which possibly influences employees’ perception of communication climate. Independent critical thinking behavior of employees can enhance their perception of the communication climate due to the experience that their words are more accepted and

- 5 -

supported within organizations (Jones & Volpe, 2011). Therefore, network centrality may have an interaction effect on the influence of followership over organizational communication climate.

The current study argues that followers’ behaviors affect the communication climate and organizational identification. It aims to contribute to develop validity of followership scale by looking at the each dimension of followership separately and also to examine to what extent followership behaviour has influence on organizational outcomes. There is a little amount of research carried out into followership (Crossman & Crossman, 2011), especially on how different behavioral characteristic of followership influence followers to perceive communication climate in organizations and how much they identify themselves to the organizations.

The suggested relationship of followership can direct organizational process in order to achieve successful management. It has been argued that the organizational identification influences employees affective and performance responses (Efraty & Wolfe, 1988). Research shows that organizational identification positively predicts affective response of employees such as job satisfaction and performance response such as task involvement and effort investment. Organizational identification influences satisfaction and commitment to organizations, which leads to higher effectiveness of the organization (Albert et al., 2000; Ashforth and Mael, 1989). The academic and corporate interests of followership lead to the following research question for the present study:

To what extent does network centrality influence the relationship between followership and communication climate and what effect does the communication climate has on organizational identification?

- 6 - Followership

Followership has been recently gained attention in many organizations such that understanding individual employees’ characteristics and utilizing the behavioral propensity accordingly may enhance organizational outcomes (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). Corporates have been showing strong interest for additional empirical research of followership to demonstrate its effect (Gardner, Avolio, Luthans, May & Walumbwa, 2005). For the current study, followership and behavioral characteristics need to be identified beforehand. In previous studies, followership was often recognized as a property of the leadership process (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009). However ‘the romance of leadership’ theory has proposed that leadership is significantly affected by the way followers construct their understanding of the leader in terms of their interpretation of personality, behaviors and effectiveness (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985).

Zaleznik (1965) conducted one of the first followership research and identified individual employees as followers who play key roles to support organizations to perform well. The types of followers were divided into four groups based on behavioral characteristic dimensions. Zaleznik examined followers’ level of dominance and activity. The first ‘dominance’ dimension explains the range of how much employees want to control the superiors or want to be controlled. The second ‘activity’ dimension illustrates how much employees are willing to initiate first. Based on the two dimensions, followers’ characteristics were identified as impulsive, compulsive, masochistic and withdrawn. Impulsive followers are often appeared as rebellious, prefer leading rather than being led. Compulsive followers tend to be predominant to their colleagues and leaders, however they feel uncomfortable for themselves by their compulsive behaviors at the same time. The masochistic tend to have pleasure by being dominated and controlled by the authority figure. Withdrawn followers does not care about their work and organizations, with putting minimum effort to keep their

- 7 -

jobs. Although his work has importance as it initiated follower-centered research, however, it is mainly focused on dysfunctional followers rather than the effective followers (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014).

On the other hand, Kelley (1988) was focused on functional follower and examined behavioral characteristics of effective followership. When other research considers functional followership as supporting leader role (Shamir, 2007), Kelley’s followership research (1988) emphasizes the role of individual followers as an essential component to build successful organizations. The two behavioral dimensions are pointed out as determining behavioral characteristics of effective followers. The first dimension is activeness how followers fully participate, engage in organization, and initiate projects without constant supervision. The second dimension is independent, critical thinking, which describes level of mindfulness, possibilities to contribute to cultivate organizations and thoughtfulness of accepting new ideas. Each behavioral dimension represents the corresponding behavioral propensity and is not mutually exclusive to each other as followers can foster both behavioral tendencies. There behavioral characteristics can interact with each other, however, it does not say that these dimensions are proved to be correlated with each other (Crossman & Crossman, 2011). As it is noted in the research (Kelley, 1998), both dimensions are regarded as not being related to each other. Kelley defines followers holding these behavioral characteristics as functional agent rather than subsidiary concept to support leadership. It contradicts with previous literature framing followership as subordinate concept of leadership (Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe & Carsten, 2014).

Along with Kelley (1998), Chaleff (1995) shed a light to followership and redefined the concept as ‘courageous follower’. In the research, followers hold much more power than it is understood and the most important quality of followership is to become courageous to use the given power efficiently. The characteristics of followers were divided into several groups

- 8 -

with two dimensions, the degree of support that the follower provides to leaders and the degree of followers’ challenge against the leaders. However the research defines followers solely in the relationship with leaders and has less focus on the individual characteristics of followers. Therefore, the present study will adapt Kelley’s (1998) definition of followership and will examine what extent the two behavioral dimensions of followership affects the organizational outcomes.

Followership and Organizational identification

Kelley (1992) conceptualizes behavioral characteristics of effective followers, with two dimensions. The first dimension, active engagement, describes the degree to which employees actively take part in performing tasks, taking initiative and feeling ownership within organizations. Employees with high level of active engagement are likely to perceive their own responsibilities for the job and make more effort to accomplish missions (Rothbard, 2001). Proactive participation in organizational activities is positively linked to organizational commitment (Salanova, Lorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003).

Employees with high level of followership are more proactive to engage in solving problems and initiate projects in organizations with independent critical thinking (Kelley, 1992). Effective followers tend to more be committed and contribute to the organization (Kelley, 1988). Active engagement characteristics of effective followers lead followers to higher job engagement as well as to organizations (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Also previous research shows that proactive personality is strongly correlated with commitment to organizations such that employees who are proactive are likely to show higher commitment to the organizations (Strauss, Griffin & Rafferty, 2009). Organizational identification refers to the perception of belongingness to organizations (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). It illustrates the degree to which employees identify themselves with organizations they belong to. In order to

- 9 -

achieve success, it is appeared to be essential in many organizations to have members feel strong oneness with organizations (Pratt, 2000). Organizational identification is positively related to individuals’ affective organizational commitment and job involvement (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Therefore, it is expected that effective followers are more likely to identify themselves to the organizations they work for compared to non-effective followers.

On the other hand, the independent critical thinking dimension illustrates the degree to which followers analyze the information, engage in independent critical thinking, evaluate situations, and make judgments of the consequences of decision making (Kelley, 1992; Latour & Rast, 2004). Followers who are engaged in independent critical thinking analyze information and often provide criticism for innovative and creative moves (Banutu-Gomez, 2004). Evidence shows that critical thinking can generate criticism to improve performance (Yeo, 2007). Engaging in independent critical thinking may enable employees to get more aware of problems in their jobs and to notice negative sides of their jobs and organizations (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock, 2009). It is argued that active engagement is positively related to organizational commitment while independent critical thinking is negatively related to organizational commitment (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock, 2009). As noted earlier, organizational commitment is a strong predictor for organizational identification (O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Therefore, it is expected that active engagement of followership characteristic is positively associated with organizational identification while independent critical thinking is negatively associated with organizational identification.

Hypothesis 1a. Active engagement characteristics of followers will have a positive relationship with organizational identification.

Hypothesis 1b. Independent critical thinking characteristics of followers will have a negative relationship with organizational identification.

- 10 -

Followership and Communication climate

It has been argued that employees’ followership strongly influence the individuals’ perception of communication climate. Followers experiencing more empowered to speak out are more likely to be proactive and participative, while they become less active when they are forced to lose their chances to suggest their opinions (Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). The experiences enable followers to formulate their opinions often influence and are influenced by communication climate in organizations (Falcione, Sussman & Herden, 1987).

According to Putnam and Cheney (1985), communication climate illustrates to ‘the atmosphere in an organization regarding accepted communication behavior’. Communication climate is an psychological term how individuals interprets their working environment in terms of communicative components (Jones & James, 1979; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). The communicative elements of organization climate includes level of receptivity of management, perceived possibility of participating in decision making and trust in communication and trustworthiness of distributed information within organizations (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001; Guzley, 1992). It resides on group level as sum of the shared individuals’ perceptions and interpretations (Jones & James, 1979). Communication climate consists of three elements of openness, the degree of receptivity of employees’ opinion being accepted, trustworthiness, the degree of trustworthiness of disseminated information and participation in decision-making, the employees’ experiences of their opinion being heard and taken seriously (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001)

Proactive engagement in exchange of adequate information is a crucial factor of effective communication (Zhang, Volz & Yen, 2004). Due to the proactivity and willingness of followership, it may enable active followers to experience strong self-efficacy, engage social interaction actively and collaborate with colleagues (Salanova, Lorens, Cifre, Martinez, & Schaufeli, 2003). Employees with willingness to participate are likely to be more actively

- 11 -

engaged in communication, and may change the communication climate in organizations. Proactive communication is essential to encourage employees to understand goals and share opinions to take actions. Proactive communicator are of particular significance in communication within organizations and their suggestions are often well-heard by its audience (Nerlich, Koteyko & Brown, 2010). Hence, it is more likely that proactive followers can experience an open and accepting communication climate more often than others. Openness and participation in decision-making are of important components consisting positive communication climate (Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001). Therefore, followers are more proactively engaged to participate, they may experience more open and participative communication with their colleagues.

Independent critical thinking characteristic of followership is associated with being able to think independently and to make constructive critiques. Critical thinking and being able to make critical remarks implies openness (Buchholz, 2001), which is likely to be an influential factor for perceptions of communication climate. Independent critical thinkers are likely to show more critical mentions to the colleagues. When their critical comments is accepted as constructive suggestions to colleagues, critical thinkers are likely to experience recognition (Isenberg, 1949). Critical thinkers show more progressive movement, when their critical suggestion is well-considered in organizations (Kennedy, Fisher & Ennis, 1991), they may become highly participative in order to achieve progressive plans. Therefore independent critical thinking employees are likely to perceive communication climate as more positive, such as more open, participative and trustful, since they are accepted to provide critiques to organizations. Also, independent critical thinking dimension can contribute to an open communication climate, a communication climate with room for expressing different opinions. Key aspect of positive communication climate is openness and participation (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012). It explains the ground for the independent critical thinking characteristics of

- 12 -

followership as influential factor for perceived communication climate as more open (McChesney, 1993). Therefore, it is expected active engagement and independent critical thinking behaviors of followership will be positively related with their perceptions of communication climate.

Hypothesis 2a. Active engagement characteristic of followership will predict positive perception of communication climate.

Hypothesis 2b. Independent critical thinking characteristic of followership will predict positive perception of communication climate.

Furthermore, communication climate affects communication attitude of organization members and strongly correlates to organizational context (Muchinsky, 1977). According to Smidts, Pruyn and Riel (2001), an open and participative communication climate can positively affect employees to identify themselves with their organizations. Previous research argued that both openness of management and participation in organizational decision making may strengthen belief in management and organizations (McCauley & Kuhnert, 1992). Also, employees are more engaged in decision-making process and may feel efficacy and self-worthiness due to their actions being taken seriously (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012). It invites employees to be engaged in organizational debates and enables employees to participate in decision making (Redding, 1972), which makes employees regard themselves as more of in-group members. Such a communication climate may encourage employees to be more committed to organization issues since they have strong trust in organizations and their participations are regarded as contributions to organizations. Hence, it is expected that communication climate will have a positive relationship with organizational identification.

- 13 -

Hypothesis 3. Communication climate will be positively related to organizational identification.

As stated earlier, active engagement dimension will positively predict organizational communication whereas independent critical thinking dimension will be negatively associated with organizational identification. Also both of active engagement and independent critical thinking of followership are positively related with communication climate. Since communication climate is expected to predict positive organizational identification, it is proposed that communication climate will partially mediate the relationship between active engagement dimension of followership and organizational identification. When communication climate is involved as influencing factor, the main effect of active engagement on organizational identification is expected to remain positive. Hence, a partial mediating effect is expected. Furthermore, communication climate will also partially mediate the influence of independent critical thinking of followership on organizational identification. The negative relationship of independent critical thinking dimension with organizational identification changed into positive when communication climate influences the relationship, therefore, hence, full mediation is suggested. Grounded on the literature review, following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 4a. Communication climate will partially mediate the effect of active engagement characteristics of followership on organizational identification.

Hypothesis 4b. Communication climate will mediate the effect of independent critical thinking characteristics of followership on organizational identification.

- 14 -

The Interaction effect of Network centrality on the relationship between followership and communication climate

Network centrality refers to the degree of individuals holding a central position within networks (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Tsai, 2000). Network centrality implies thevisibility of an individual in a network and potential communication activity of the subject. Network centrality is strongly associated with social capital and social integration in the organizations (Campbell, Marsden, & Hurlbert, 1986). Developing social network at work can benefit employees since they feel proactive to engage in communications with organization members (Thompson, 2005). Willingness of social interaction generated by network centrality may encourage proactive followers to perceive communication climate in organizations more positively.

Social network at work can provide employees the resources and employees with high-level of initiatives are likely to develop networks in the organizations (Ashford & Black, 1996). Network building is important in developing social capital of employees and social integration within organizations (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Proactive employees can benefits with constructing central social position in networks with other employees. Network centrality was argued to boost reciprocated relationships with group members by pro-social behavioral styles (Gest, Graham‐Bermann & Hartup, 2001). Social position in networks enables employees to have more chances to speak out since they hold belief that their opinions are not disregarded due to the established relationship with other communicators (Farmer & Rodkin, 1996). Therefore, proactive employees might have better opportunities to get the floor and pitch, which made them possibly perceive communication climate as more attractive when they are in a more elaborate network. Being in central position in networks may boost actively engaged employees to experience higher chances to expose their opinions. Employees with proactive characteristics and positioned as center of

- 15 -

networks, perceive more opportunity to make voices than employees only with proactive characteristics since they are positioned in the core of network which gives them confidence to present their ideas (Morrison, 2002). It describes that the proactive characteristics with high network centrality may boost the influence of active engagement on communication climate. As discussed earlier, active engagement of followership may have positive influence on perceptions of communication climate as it is more positive, open and accepting. Therefore, it is suggested that active engagement behaviors of followership with high level of network centrality may have an interaction effect on the communication climate.

The influence of independent critical thinking on perception of communication climate is also likely to be affected by network centrality. Employees with independent critical thinking behavior are often engaged in analyzing the quality of arguments, clarifying issues, questioning credibility of sources and challenging the current status of organizations (Kennedy, Fisher & Ennis, 1991). Independent thinkers often tend to make self-reliant choices and to be dependent on themselves (Cross and Madson, 1997). Independent thinkers show tendency of being indifferent to opinions from other colleagues, which lead them to have less social interaction (Dougherty, Cheung & Florea, 2008), and may lead them to stand on the edge of the network, even outside of the network. However previous research shows that these independent critical thinkers can be supplemented and enhanced by stimulating interaction with others and paying attention of the shared thoughts of organization (Ten Dam & Volman, 2004). It describes that independent critical thinkers can benefit from socializing with colleagues and accomplishing interdependent relationship with them, which lead them to have higher chances to be central part of network (Ibarra, 1993). Therefore, it is expected that network centrality will have interaction effect with the influence of independent critical thinking on communication climate.

- 16 -

Hypothesis 5a. There will be an interaction effect between active engagement of followership and network centrality on communication climate.

Hypothesis 5b. There will be an interaction effect between independent critical thinking of followership and network centrality on communication climate.

Figure 1a. Conceptual model of active engagement dimension in followership

Figure 1b. Conceptual model of independent critical thinking dimension in followership

Since the empirical research of followership has not been advanced yet, the current study aims to adopt quantitative research design. It aims to propose insights into what effects followership could have on organizational identification as Figure 1. It will examine whether

+ + + + – — — + + + Active engagement Communication climate Network centrality Organizational identification Independent critical thinking Communication climate Network centrality Organizational identification

- 17 -

communication climate in organizations mediates the effects of followership on organizational identification. Furthermore, it will be analyzed whether followership behaviors and network centrality may lead to a positive effect on communication climate such as high level of openness, trustworthiness and participation in decision making. It is expected that network centrality contributes positively and it interacts with active behavioral characteristics of followership on communication climate.

Method

Research Design

The present study employed a cross-sectional quantitative design. Online survey was adopted to examine the moderating and mediating relationships followership, network centrality, communication climate and organizational identification variables.

Procedure

At the beginning of the survey, respondents were informed that the study is designed to investigate the influence of followership on social interaction within the organization and what factors influence the organizational outcomes. The questionnaire took approximately 10 minutes to be completed. Respondents were recruited through email and SNS community from 1st of May till 18th of May in 2014.

Respondents

124 respondents who has been currently working participated in an online survey. The survey was restricted to employees who have 5 or more co-workers in order to measure the influence of network centrality more precisely. Engagement of social interaction with other colleagues is preceded to measure Network centrality. Since number of colleagues represents the possible

- 18 -

communicators at work and component of network, it has been figured to reach at least 5 or more. Respondents consist of 53 males (42.7%) and 71 females (57.3%). The average age of participants was 31.65 years old (SD = 9.895) and the average years of working was 3.25 years (SD = 4.297). In addition, 79.8% of respondents (n = 99) have a full-time job while 20.2% of respondents (n = 25) have a part-time. The respondents were generally well-educated (86.3% possessed and university degree or post-graduate degree).

Measures

Followership. The followership was measured with 20 items developed by Kelley (1992).

Kelley argued that the behavioral characteristics of effective followership are supported by two behavioral characteristics; Active engagement and Independent critical thinking. These two behavioral characteristics represent different aspects of followership, and it was dealt with separately as respective variables in the research (Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore & Bullock, 2009). Therefore, the current study will look into the behavioral characteristics of followership separately and how each of the characteristics has an effect on the organizational outcomes. The questionnaire includes items such as ‘Does your work help you fulfill some societal goal or personal dream that is important to you?’ for active engagement and ‘Do you make a habit of internally questioning the wisdom of your supervisor’s decision rather than just doing what you are told?’ for independent thinking. The 13 items were measured with 5-point Likert scale, with a range from ‘never’ to ‘almost always’. Reliability of total Followership items was α.=847 and Factor analysis result shows that each of 13 items are loaded onto two dimensions, ‘Active engagement’(α = .871) and ‘Independent critical thinking’ (α = .651).

Communication climate. The mediating variable, communication climate is measured

- 19 -

communication climate as consisting of three dimensions (Hoevan & Fransen, 2012; Smidts, Pruyn & Van Riel, 2001); Participation in the decision-making communication climate (α = .838), Trust in the communication (α = .821) and Openness of the communication (α = .778). In the present study, the reliability of the complete scale was α = .706. The degree to agree the statements of their communication climate were asked on a 5-point Likert scale, from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. Sample statements are ‘If you say something here, you are taken seriously.’ (participation), ‘When my colleagues tell me something, I trust them to tell me the truth.’ (trust) and ‘The objectives of our organization are probably only known by those who formulated them.’ (openness).

Organizational identification. It is measured with the six items on 5-point Likert scale

from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’, developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). The measurement scale has been adopted in a number of studies of organizational identification (Liu, Loi & Lam, 2011). Sample questions are ‘I am very interested in what others think about the company I work for’ and the 6 items were averaged into one construct (α = . 628).

Network centrality. Network centrality refers to network size, as well as the range or

degree of centrality. Network centrality was measured with ‘team-member network centrality' items. In the previous research of Neubert and Tagger (2004), team member network centrality was measured by two questions; ‘Please write the names of team members who are important sources of professional advice, who you approach if you have a work-related problem, or when you want advice on a decision you have to make (advice)’ and ‘Please write the names of team members you can count on, who you view as allies, who are dependable in times of crisis (support)’. Freeman’s research (1979) asked the total number of direct contacts an employee has as measure of degree centrality. The methods in the current research adapted Freeman’s methods (1979) and combined with the ‘team member network centrality’ measures. The questions were paraphrased to adjust in order to ask the number of team

- 20 -

members for the corresponding the questions. The advisory team member network centrality was asked with ‘Indicate how many team members do you consider as important sources of professional advice, who you approach if you have a work-related problem, or when you want advice on a decision you have to make’. The supportive team member network centrality was asked with ‘Indicate how many team members can you can count on, who you view as allies, who are dependable in times of crisis’. This measure was standardized by dividing the number of answered team member, across both questions, by total number of the team members. Relative measurement enables comparing values measured by different units with standardizing values with an unified unit (Bryman, 2012). The two questions were positively correlated (r = .695, p < .01), therefore, averaged into a composite measure (α = . 614).

Result

The analyses will be reported in three sections. First, the variables were standardized to unify the different scales. Separate linear regression analyses were conducted to see direct relationships among followership, communication climate and organizational identification. The multiple mediation analysis will be followed to see whether communication climate mediates the effect of followership and organizational identification. In order to see moderating effect of network centrality on the relationship between followership and organizational Identification, the main effect of followership on organizational Identification is examined by simple linear regression analysis and multiple moderation analysis is reported. Active engagement and independent critical thinking dimensions of followership were tested separately for all of the hypotheses. Correlation analysis result (see Appendix 2.) shows that independent critical thinking characteristics of Followership does not have any significant association with communication climate (r = .168, p > .05), organizational identification (r = .132, p > .05) and network centrality (r = -.068, p > .05). On the other hand, active

- 21 -

engagement of Followership has a positive relationship with Communication Climate (b = .275, p < .01), Organizational Identification (b = .334, p < .01) and network centrality (b = .237, p < .01).

Direct effect of Followership on Communication Climate and Organizational Identification

Active engagement dimension of followership is expected to predict organizational identification positively (Hypothesis 1a). To examine the main effect, simple linear regression analyses were conducted separately. Regression analysis (F = 27.488, R2 = .184, p < .001) shows a main effect of active nagement (b = .429, p < .001) predicting organizational identification. Therefore hypothesis 1a was confirmed. 18% variance of organizational identification could be predicted by active engagement dimension of followership. Also independent critical thinking dimension of followership is suggested to be related to organizational identification (Hypothesis 1b). Simple linear regression analysis was conducted, and the result showed (F = 2.163, R2 = .017, p = .144) that the relationship between independent critical thinking and organizational identification is not significant (b = .132, p = .144). Hence, hypothesis 1b was rejected.

In order to see the main effect of active engagement and independent critical thinking on communication climate, two simple regression analyses were conducted separately. Simple regression analysis of active engagement and communication climate variables (F = 9.989, R2 = .076, p < .01) shows that active engagement is positively related to communication climate (b = .275, p < .01). Therefore hypothesis 2a was confirmed. It shows very weak relationship active engagement and communication climate, such that 7% variance of communication climate is explained by active engagement. In terms of the relationship between independent critical thinking and communication climate, analysis (F = 3.47, R2 = .028, p = .062) shows that non-significant result (b = .168, p = .062). Hence, hypothesis 2b was rejected.

- 22 -

Communication climate has a significant relationship with organizational identification (R2 = .112, p < .001) and it has positive influence on organizational identification (b = .275, p < .001). Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Communication climate predicts 12% variance of organizational identification. Overall, the result shows that active engagement characteristics of followership, communication climate and organizational identification have a statistically significant and positive relationship respectively.

Mediation by Communication Climate

Hypothesis 4a proposed that the effect of active engagement of followership on organizational identification is partially mediated by the communication climate. Hypothesis 1a and 2a were confirmed and the findings suggested that communication climate is positively associated with organizational identification. To examine the partial mediation, multiple regression analysis with active engagement dimension of followership, communication climate and organizational identification was conducted. Sobel’s Z values are tested to confirm statistical significance of the mediation.

The result shows (F = 18.543, R2 = .235, p < .001) that the effect of followership on organizational identification is partially mediated by communication climate (b = .364, p < .01; b’ = .234, p < .001; Z = 2.48, p < .05). The mediation model explains 23% variance of organizational identification. The strong positive main effect of active engagement on organizational identification (b = .429, p < .001) was decreased when communication climate was included in the regression analysis (b = . 364, p < .01). Therefore the relationship between followership and organizational identification seem to be mediated by communication climate. Hypothesis 4a was confirmed.

Another mediation regression analysis was conducted to test hypothesis 4b. And the result shows (F = 3.012, R2 = .047, p = .053) that communication climate (b = .174, p = .053)

- 23 -

does not mediate the influence of independent critical thinking on organizational identification. Hypothesis 4b was rejected.

Interaction effect of Followership and Network Centrality on Communication Climate

Hypothesis 5a suggested that the relationship between active engagement and communication climate is influenced by network centrality so that moderation analysis was conducted. For the analysis an interaction term between active engagement and network centrality was included with active engagement and network centrality as independent variables and communication climate as a dependent variable. Multiple regression analysis (F = 6.900, R2 = .147, p < .001) shows both followership (b = .281, p < .01) and network centrality (b = .258,

p < .01) have significant positive relations with communication climate. However, the

interaction effect of followership and network centrality on communication climate was statistically not significant (b = -.057, p = .522). No interaction effect was observed, hence, hypothesis 5a was rejected.

Another multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the moderating effect of network centrality on the relationship of independent critical thinking with communication climate. An interaction term between independent critical thinking and network centrality was included with independent critical thinking and network centrality as independent variables. The result (F = 4.088, R2 = .093, p < .01) shows both independent critical thinking (b = .193,

p < .05) and network centrality (b = .248, p < .01) have a non-significant relationships with

communication climate. The interaction effect of independent critical thinking and network centrality on communication climate was statistically not significant (b = -.049, p = .559). Hence, hypothesis 5b was rejected.

- 24 - Discussion

The analysis of results provides insightful findings. It answers the research question that only active engagement dimension of followership was to be positively related to communication climate and organizational identification and communication climate partially mediates the impact of active engagement on organizational identification. There was no interaction effect of the network centrality on the relationship between followership and organizational communication.

Actively engaging behavioral characteristic of followership is perceived as a great benefit for improving communication climate of organizations. As a result of separate linear regression analyses, active engagement characteristic appeared to have relationship with communication climate. To be more specific, employees who are actively engaged with organizational matters may perceive communication climate in the organizations as encouraging individuals’ participation so that their opinions are taken seriously (Zhang, Ioerger & Volz, 2004).

Furthermore, active engagement characteristics of followership is a significant predictor of organizational identification. Employees showing high level of active engagement are likely to identify themselves as a part of an organization and feel belongingness to the organization. Aligning with literature review, communication climate predicts the degree of organizational identification that individual employees may feel such that employees experience oneness to organizations when organization has a more open and participative communication climate. The proactivity of employees in participative communication helps colleagues to be reminded on the shared goals and aims to achieve the teamwork actively (Kamali, Fan & Yen, 2007). And the exchange thoughts of organizational matters makes employees feel strong ties with each other, and the bond is expanded to group and organizational level (Dayton & Henriksen, 2007).

- 25 -

The result also shows that communication climate is expected to influence organizational identification and mediate the direct impact of active engagement behavior on organizational identification. The importance of communication within organizations has been contributed to explain development of employees’ commitment to the organizations (Carrière & Bourque, 2009), which lead employees to higher organizational identification. The multiple regression analysis shows that communication climate partially mediates the relationship between followership and organizational identification. The mediation model fit increased explained variance of organizational identification with active engagement (R2 = .184), when communication climate is involved (R2 = .235). It illustrates that communication climate becomes an influential factor to enhance organizational identification of proactive employees.

To explore the further relationship between active engagement and communication climate perceived by employees, I look for the moderating effect of network centrality. Network centrality is expected to serve as a moderator between active engagement behavioral characteristics of followership and communication climate (Morrison, 2002), as well as holding the main effect on communication climate. The regression analysis result explains the network centrality is a significant predictor for communication climate. Employees with proactive behavioral characteristics may lead employees to feel the communication climate of organizations as more participative and open. There was no significant interaction effect between followership and network centrality on communication was observed.

However, individual’s network size neither lead enhanced impact of followership on perceived communication climate and nor moderate the influence. The unexpected finding is not compatible with argumentation of previous research. It needs to be further explored in future research with different research design and methods in order to provide an in-depth understanding of the findings, how network centrality does not influence the effect of active

- 26 -

engagement of followership on perceived communication climate, as expected in the literature review. The rejected moderating effect of network centrality explained as network centrality is rather associated with active engagement characteristics of followership. It has been suggested that proactive employees tend to develope social networks in organizations (Thompson, 2005). Followers who are proactive to engage with jobs and organizations are more likely to engage communications with members in the organizations (Yirmiya, Gamliel, Pilowsky, Feldman, Baron-Cohen & Sigman, 2006), therefore, proactive employees tend to construct a large network and become positioned central part of the network (Morrison, 2002). Therefore, further research may focus on direct relationship between followership and network centrality.

Independent critical thinking dimension of followership does not have any association with communication climate, organizational identification and network centrality. The explanation for the result is that Kelley’s(1992) model suggests more of the interactive effect of independent critical thinking and active engagement dimension. The model explains the two dimensions are not correlated but mutually interactive. It was proposed that independent critical thinking characteristics can be more beneficial with high level of active engagement. The research argues that employees only with independent critical tendency are likely to criticize rather than support with constructive suggestion. High level of independent critical thinking with low active engagement may criticize organizations, and such a negative feedback can influence organizational climate, as well as prevent other members to proceed further suggestions (Baron, 1993). Employees with both independent critical thinking and active engagement may become asset to organizations when Therefore, further research can focus on the interaction effect of these two dimensions and aims to construct more solid dimensions and variables in order to examine followership empirically.

- 27 -

Although the current research did find some insightful results, it had to cope with some limitations. Causal relationship among variables are hardly able to be discussed sicne cross-sectional research design has difficulties in establishing causal effect. Additionally, methods to measure network centrality is combination of two separate measurement, yet to be empirically validated. The measures of each variables are self-reported, which could interfere with the outcomes. Social desirability bias implies that respondents are likely to answer in socially acceptable way which may not reflect accurately how they truly think (Nederhof, 1985). However, the strength of the effects discovered, including the mediating role of communication climate, weighs confidence in the internal validity. In order to strengthen the theoretical argumentation of the present study, future research may consider assumed causal effects adopting experiment or longitudinal research design. Also future research may need to consider the assumed causal relationships in the current study and can be directed to develop more solid measurement of network centrality and validate the scale as well as improve social desirability bias.

Based on the findings, organizations are advised to invest in attracting employees with active engagement behavioral characteristics, or invest in training for the development of such qualities in order to enhance employees’ self-identification towards organizations. The proactive behavior of employees can be encouraged by empowerment and job enrichment (Campbell, 2000). In order to boost enterprising qualities and integrity of employees, managers can encourage employees to be part of the process to create a shared goal and expectations (van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004). Identifying core value of organiztions and share it often with employees can boost employees to be initiative for new projects (Ferris, Arthur, Berkson, Kaplan, Harrell-Cook & Frink, 1998). When thoughts of employees do not align with organizations’ goals, it is required to let them experience support of their dissent and possibility of change orientation that organizations pursue (Organ, 1990).

- 28 -

Furthermore, facilitating such an open and participative communication climate is suggested as an influential factor for successful organizational management and organizational identification of employees. Communication climate can be improved by investing in physical and psychological support for employees. Management can consider collecting feedback from employees and apply the internal measures not only to improve organizational issues, but also to present that organizations do not limit employees’ freedom to express and let employees experience that their opinions contributes to improvement of organizations (Allen, Shore & Griffeth, 2003). Also, putting efforts to focus on individual needs and working benefits may employees feel taken seriously (Huselid, 1995). The assessment of communication climate is rather based on individual employees’ interpretation than shared evaluations of the climate among colleagues or within organizations (Jones & James, 1979). Therefore, managers should more pay attention to show care for individual situation and needs in order to enable them to perceive communication climate as more supportive and welcoming for employees to be engaged in.

The findings provide insights for organizations to encourage employees to exert followership and take initiatives. Organizational identification enables employees define themselves with organizations, and it increases job satisfaction and enhance performance of employees (Ashforth, Harrison & Corley, 2008). In order for employees to achieve high level of organizational identification, it is encouraged to create supportive organizational climate to enable them to actively contribute. Attractive communication encourages employees to feel comfortable to state suggestions, feel appreciated by organizations and consequently feel included in the organizations (Smidts, Pruyn & van Riel, 2001). The present research establishes the empirical foundation for further academic research of followership and provides managerial implications. The study emphasizes the importance of followership,

- 29 -

especially active engagement behavior of employees would yields positive organizational outcomes.

- 30 - Reference

Albert, S., Ashforth, B. and Dutton, J. (2000). Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review,

25(1), 13-17.

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover process. Journal of

management, 29(1), 99-118.

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.

Ashforth, Blake E., and Fred Mael. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.

Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214.

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60, 421-449.

Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership The Theoretical Foundation of a Contemporary Construct.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50-60.

Baker, S. D., & Gerlowski, D. A. (2007). Team effectiveness and leader-follower agreement: An empirical study. Journal of American Academy of Business, 12(1), 15-23.

Baker, S. D., Mathis, C. J., & Stites-Doe, S. (2011). An exploratory study investigating leader and follower characteristics at US healthcare organizations. Journal of Managerial

Issues.

Banutu-Gomez, M. B. (2004). Great leaders teach exemplary followership and serve as servant leaders. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 4(1/2), 143-151.

- 31 -

Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., & Zelditch, M. (2002). Construction of status and referential structure. Sociological Theory, 20, 157−179.

Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A Fresh Look at Followership: A Model for Matching Followership and Leadership Styles. Journal of

Behavioral & Applied Management, 7(3).

Blanchard, A. L., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., & Bullock, A. (2009). Followership styles and employee attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12(2), 111-131.

Blau, P. M. (1968). Hierarchy of authority in organizations. The American Journal of

Sociology, 73(4), 453-467.

Bligh, M. C., & Schyns, B. (2007). Leading questions: the romance lives on: contemporary issues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3), 343-360.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

Buchholz, W. (2001). Open communication climate. Bentley College Waltham, Massachusetts.

Campbell, D. J. (2000). The proactive employee: Managing workplace initiative. The

Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 52-66.

Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1986). Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social networks, 8(1), 97-117.

Carriere, J., & Bourque, C. (2009). The effects of organizational communication on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in a land ambulance service and the

- 32 -

mediating role of communication satisfaction. Career Development International,

14(1), 29-49.

Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179-189.

Craik, K. H., Ware, A. P., Kamp, J., O’Reilly III, C., Staw, B., & Zedeck, S. (2002). Explorations of construct validity in a combined managerial and personality assessment programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 171-193.

Crossman, B., & Crossman, J. (2011). Conceptualising followership–a review of the literature.

Leadership, 7(4), 481-497.

Dayton, E., & Henriksen, K. (2007). Teamwork and communication: communication failure: basic components, contributing factors, and the call for structure. Joint Commission

Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 33(1), 34-47.

Dickson, M. W., Smith, D. B., Grojean, M. W., & Ehrhart, M. (2001). An organizational climate regarding ethics: The outcome of leader values and the practices that reflect them. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(2), 197-217.

Dougherty, T. W., Cheung, Y. H., & Florea, L. (2008). The role of personality in employee developmental networks. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 653-669.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative science quarterly, 239-263.

Efraty, D., & Wolfe, D. M. (1988). The effect of organizational identification on employee affective and performance responses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 3(1), 105-112.

- 33 -

Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043-1062.

Farmer, T. W., & Rodkin, P. C. (1996). Antisocial and prosocial correlates of classroom social positions: The social network centrality perspective. Social Development, 5(2), 174-188.

Ferris, G. R., Arthur, M. M., Berkson, H. M., Kaplan, D. M., Harrell-Cook, G., & Frink, D. D. (1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 235-264.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks,

1(3), 215-239.

Forward, G. L., Czech, K., & Lee, C. M. (2011). Assessing Gibb's supportive and defensive communication climate: An examination of measurement and construct validity.

Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 1-15.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343-372.

Gest, S. D., Graham‐Bermann, S. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2001). Peer experience: Common and unique features of number of friendships, social network centrality, and sociometric status. Social Development, 10(1), 23-40.

Guzley, R. M. (1992). Organizational climate and communication climate predictors of commitment to the organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 5(4), 379-402.

- 34 -

Falcione, R. L., Sussman, L., & Herden, R. P. (1987). Communication climate in organizations. Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective, 195-227.

Heller, T., & Til, J. V. (1982). Leadership and Followership: Some summary propositions.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 405-414.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and organization: do American theories apply abroad?. Organizational dynamics, 9(1), 42-63.

Howell, J. M., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. Academy of Management Review,

30(1), 96-112.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management journal,

38(3), 635-672.

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative science

quarterly, 277-303.

Isenberg, A. (1949). Critical communication. The philosophical review, 330-344.

Jones, A. P., & James, L. R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions. Organizational behavior

and human performance, 23(2), 201-250.

Jones, C., & Volpe, E. H. (2011). Organizational identification: Extending our understanding of social identities through social networks. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(3),

- 35 -

Kamali, K., Fan, X., & Yen, J. (2007). Towards a theory for multiparty proactive communication in agent teams. International Journal of Cooperative Information

Systems, 16(2), 271-298.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow, and followers who lead themselves. Broadway Business.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing

leaders. Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic.

Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal, 18(4), 1-7.

Lee, D. Y., & Tsang, E.W. K. (2001). The effects of entrepreneurial personality, background and network activities on venture growth. Journal of Management Studies, 38, 583-602.

Liu, Y., Loi, R., & Lam, L. W. (2011). Linking organizational identification and employee performance in teams: The moderating role of team-member exchange. The

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3187-3201.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational

Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

McCauley, D. P., & Kuhnert, K. W. (1992). A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management, Public Administration Quarterly, 265-284.

McChesney, R. W. (1993). Critical communication research at the crossroads. Journal of

Communication, 43(4), 98-104.

McClosky, H., Hoffmann, P. J., & O'Hara, R. (1960). Issue conflict and consensus among party leaders and followers. The American Political Science Review, 406-427.