Leader- Follower Dysfunction:

Follower Responses and Organizational Consequences
by Nancy Carlson Lewine, Doctor of Philosophy
Temple University, 1995
Major Advisor: Dr. Mel Silberman

     Healthy leader-follower relationships are critical to the successful functioning of any organizational system. At the highest levels of management, this two person sub-system influences the entire organization. Variables which interfere with the normal, healthy behavior of the individuals discharging their organizational responsibilities are important factors to address (Krantz, 1989). While leaders have been researched thoroughly during the past several decades, the role of followers has not (Hollander and Offermann, 1990). Only recently do we publicly acknowledge and investigate the interaction between leaders and followers and their results. During the past 30 years, dysfunctional behavior in the family system gained public recognition. Conversely, similar dysfunctional behavior being displayed in the organizational system, is just becoming evident (Allcorn, 1992).

     Today, people speak freely about their experiences growing up in a dysfunctional family; but, 15 or 20 years ago they would have kept silent or their cries would have fallen on deaf ears. It is the belief of this author that the same phenomenon is occurring in the organizational system today and that people are only beginning to bring the organizational skeletons out of the closet. Anecdotal data corroborates this at the grass-roots level. This study is an initial foray into this emerging segment of the literature.

     This research focuses on the dysfunctional leader behaviors and follower responses at the highest levels of management in the organization. The goal is to identify and describe specific behaviors and consequences of those interactions from the perspective of the follower. The following research questions are examined:

1. How do leaders act out pathological/dysfunctional parenting roles in the workplace? How often are these behaviors exhibited?

2. What are the behavioral responses of followers of dysfunctional leaders?

3. What are the tangible consequences to the organization to these leader behavior-follower response cycles?

     A descriptive qualitative method of research is used to explore the topic of dysfunction in the workplace. This study focuses on dysfunctional leader behaviors and the primary responses of the followers to those behaviors. Tangible organizational consequences are also documented. The project melds several disparate theories including psychoanalytic, leadership, followership, family systems, addictive/dysfunctional systems, general systems, and co-dependency (Horney, 1950; Hollander & Offermann, 1990; Schaef, 1990; Tracy, 1989; Whitfield, 1991). The descriptive research design is based on the following purposes: to identify or justify problems; to detail factual information about phenomenon; to make comparisons and evaluations; and to find out what others are doing and benefit from that knowledge in the future (Van Dalen & Meyer, 1966). This method also offers the opportunity to interact with the participants and as a result surfaced
important findings.

     Thirty individuals participated in this study. They completed a rating form and participated in a flexible, but focused interview. The instrument created for the purpose of this study is based on an adaptation of Horney's (Horney, 1950) three pathological parenting roles. Test-retest reliability is .87, p<.01. Three experts in the field reviewed the descriptions and verified the category in which they belonged to develop content validity. Due to the infancy of this topic, other valid instruments were not available. Data was collected using a combination of measures including the Dysfunctional Leader Scale (DLS) and an interview. The DLS describes three leader types:

     Self-Sacrificing (Type I), Dominating (Type II), and Withdrawing (Type III). Followers ratedtheir leaders on three Likert-type scales ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5). When the follower rated her leader a 4 or 5 on the DLS, she was asked to provide examples of her leader's behavior. An interview was conducted to clarify the examples and obtain descriptions of the behavioral responses of the follower/participant. Tangible organizational consequences were also documented during the interview.

     A total of 54 behavioral descriptors were collected including 10 Type I, 26 Type II and 18 Type III. Historically, businesses have modeled their structure and leader behaviors after the military. Therefore, it was not surprising that 48% (26 out of 54) of the total sample of leader behaviors were Type II, Dominating. The findings indicate that, while not surprising, these behaviors lead to serious negative consequences in the organization including low morale, low productivity, and time waste.

     The descriptors in each category are further sub-categorized and interpreted. A sub-set of
research question number one includes the calculation of the frequency of leader behavior
occurrence. During the interview, followers were asked to estimate the number of times their leader displayed his or her behavior on an annualized basis. Reported frequencies range from a minimum of twice a year to 480 times per year. Over two-thirds of the behaviors in all three Types occur at least once a month or more. Clearly, dysfunctional behavior in the workplace occurs significantly more often than as isolated incidences.

     The heart of this study is the response of the followers to their leaders dysfunctional behavior. Follower responses are sub-categorized into Horney's (Allcorn, 1992) three basic approaches children use to respond to anxiety; clinging/Moving Toward, fighting back/Moving Against and retreating/Moving Away. Children who cling, assume a self-effacing role, and try to pull others toward themselves for love. They abandon their power of self-assertion to serve others with the hope that they will be taken care of in return. Children who fight back are trying to regain control and dominate others and events. They employ perfectionism, arrogance/vindictiveness and narcissism to master their world. The third approach is the child who retreats or withdraws from the fray in an appeal to freedom. Rather than dealing with others, the child refrains from active participation in life. She experiences relationships with others as coercive, stifling, and unrewarding.

     The results indicate that adults do respond in these three ways in the workplace in an effort to deal with their leaders. Moving Toward, 23 out of 54 (42.6%), and Moving Against, 20 out of 54 (37%) were the two most frequently used primary responses by the followers. Moving Away was employed in only 11 out of 54 (20%) primary responses.

     The most significant finding was that followers changed their behaviors in response to the same leader behavior and improved the tangible consequences as a result. Followers attempted a second response in 29 out of 54 (53.7%) leader behaviors and further, 18 of those 29 second attempts improve tangible results ranging from slight to significant.

     The second time around followers employed healthier self-assertive behaviors, either one-on-one with their leader or in a group. The findings of this study suggest and support the strength of power and influence followers have in the leader-follower sub-system (Hollander, 1964, 1978). This notion is important considering the substantial negative outcomes identified in this study as a result of dysfunctional behavior.

     Too many people working in American businesses and organizations are inculcated with the idea that good followership is defined as carrying out the decisions of their leader. Many believe they have no control over what happens in the workplace as a result of their leaders' behavior. These data suggest that followers do not need to be empowered by their leader; but, they need to give themselves permission to self-empower. Employing their own personal power, their individual right, is not something that is vested in them by the organizational entity. It is something they can decide for themselves.

     In today's economy, business competition is heightened. These are the times when the weaker organizations fold and the stronger ones move ahead. Considering the potential negative consequences of dysfunctional behavior as investigated in this study, organizational leaders need to pay attention. Dysfunctional behavior may be eroding the billions of dollars and person hours they have invested in training and consulting endeavors in order to increase their chances of maintaining and perpetuating their organizations. While not every organization will be faced with the challenge of transforming an unhealthy/dysfunctional organizational system into a healthy, functional one, many will. Those who do find organizational roots of dysfunctional management behavior will be far better off in the future if they begin addressing these critical factors now, rather than later.
________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Nancy C. Lewine is President of Achievement Alliance Corporation, a Strategic Development consultancy in Montgomeryville, PA.

 

Succession | Job Matching | Performance Apprasial | Leader - Follower | Atalanta Syndrome