User:Lavrentj

LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT SPECIALISM Introduction Overtime there has been an increase in the obsolete status of traditional hierarchy of organizations. There is a fast evolution in today’s organizations into pyramids having top-down leadership such as cross-functional teams, clusters, networks, and federations. The perceived change has been caused by quite a number of factors. Taking a perspective of a flatter organization, for instance, there are few authority levels involved, with decline in the number of middle-management positions, as well as an increase in the authority of employees towards decision-making. As such, there has been an increased importance of the role of the follower. In addition, developments in technology with respect to the internet has offered followers increased accessibility to information. As a result, there has been a decline in the level of dependency of the followers on the leaders, as the sole source of information. As is mentioned by Collinson (2006), “it is often stated that the essence of leadership is followership and that without followers there can be no leaders” (pp. 179). However, in contrast to leadership research, followership is not much studied as a discipline. The main objective of this essay is to offer a perspective of leadership and management specialism within the contemporary society. In so doing, this paper pays closer attention to followership as an under-searched aspect of leadership. The paper makes critical reference to “Carsten et al (2010) - Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study”, situating it within the existing theoretical frameworks and literature, to gain an incisive understanding of its relevance to the subject matter. In the first section, this paper shall offer an overview of the above article, locating studies within the wider debate, regarding purposes for educational research and political context. The second section of this paper shall conduct a critical literature review, with reference to the wider research within the followership as a specific area of specialism. This essay then discusses the ethical implications of the undertaken research in the third section, and the manner in which these have been addressed. Finally, the paper discusses the appropriateness of the theoretical and methodological approaches undertaken, and the employed research techniques. Overview of the Paper The main theme that Carsten, et al. (2010) bring on board is the manner in which the meaning of followership can be deconstructed through the use of qualitative approach. The authors suggest that through the various empirical analysis conducted, various themes and aspects of followership become apparent. This paper notes that the main objective of deconstruction is to take out the “multiplicity of meaning” from any term of construct. In order to realize this, the authors took into consideration the qualitative technique of interviewing in order to gain a personal perspective of the participants regarding the social constructs of followership. Accordingly, it is understandable that this technique is vital for research on the exploratory theory building, considering that it enables the emergence of key themes from the data. Carsten et al. note that the operational context of an individual tends to pose significant influence on the manner in which an individual makes social deconstruction of definitions of various roles, viz, a follower or a leader. In addition, the authors also note that it has a role in the manner in which such roles are enacted by individuals. As such, the leader and the organization create a context that has the potential of influencing social constructs through the activation of what the paper mentions as “followership schema”. These schema must however be relevant to some situations in particular and pose an influence on the behavior of individuals on their roles in followership. The paper poses a key note on the allusion that followership schemas are structures of generalized knowledge which tend to develop overtime by means of interaction and socialization with stimuli that is relative to the followership and the leadership in equal measure. Citing Louis (1980), the paper suggests that these schemas may be influenced by organization through setting of behavioral standards and norms within various roles of hierarchy, followed by a subsequent reinforcement of the standards. For instance, the authors note that there is sufficient evidence to affirm that there is socialization existent for the sole purpose of viewing systems of hierarchy including organizations with respect to the status inequalities within the organizations as well as the existent power differentials amongst individuals in various positions of hierarchy. As a matter of fact, some of the research conducted on the social construction of leadership showcases that there is a tendency of maintenance of romanticized leadership notion amongst individuals. In this context, Uhl-Bien & Pillai (2007) notes that the term leader has the tendency of activating a schema of success, notoriety, and heroism. Moreover, it is noteworthy that being a corollary of leadership and its romance, there is a possibility of social schema contributing towards followership subordination. This is a perspective that to a greater extent, followers are ineffectual. Carsten, et al. (2010) note that in as much as the various perceived approaches to followership tend to bring followers, viz, subordinates, into the picture, and may play a role in gaining an in-depth understanding of leadership, they are still models of leadership. This is so in the sense that their main behavioral focus is on the leadership behaviors, for instance, self-leadership or shared leadership, and not the behaviors of followership. There is a difference in the behaviors of followership considering that they pay little or no attention to the independent activities of the occupants of “subordinate” positions. Instead, the main focus is on the behavior of those individuals who act in relation to the leaders. Else, one would say, the behavior of followership are never just about the interaction of individuals in relation to their work, for instance, self-leadership and self-management, or even the other co-workers, for instance, shared leadership. Instead, it is in relation to the individuals having higher status – with regard to the leaders. The paper mentions that a suggestion offered by the perspective of social construction is that there is a creation and interpretation of reality by individuals in their interaction with the environments. On the basis of that social order is a product of humans, the paper suggests that there is a socialization of individuals towards construction of reality around norms of institutionalization towards behavior, feeling, and thinking. Carsten, et al. (2010) cite Weick (1993) in which they mention that organizational social constructions can be explained at best through an interaction of social schema driving processing of information, perceptions, and contextual attributes making given information “salient” to the constructor. Generally, this paper notes that the responses they obtained from the respondents to the interviews indicated that there is a social construction of the role of followers by themselves, around proactivity or passivity levels which they believed should be displayed by followers. For instance, Carsten, et al. (2010) note that the responses of their followers who were more passive took note of some of the themes of reduction in decision making and responsibility, together with a lack of stress that is in most cases linked to the role of leadership. On the other hand, the authors note that the proactive followers on a different perspective expressed a desire to take up accountability or ownership. Moreover, they highlighted frustrations and problems linked with the lack of requisite authority to drive a matter in the direction that is viewed as best for the organization or department in most cases. Perceiving a continuum between the proactive and passive followers, those individuals conceptualizing followership as an “active role”, expresses the desire for input in decision making. However, the authors note that they mentioned that they could only express their opinions at the presentation of the opportunity to do so. Carsten, et al. note that this was the major point of difference between proactive social construction followers and their active social construction counterparts. Critical Review of Literature in the Perspective of Research on Followership Making a comparison to leadership, followership has not been studied much. There are quite a number of authors who have made description of types of followers, albeit there are only a few who have engaged in a study of what followership really means. Amongst the first authors to make a presentation of an in-depth overview of the roles of followers within the leadership literature is Shamir (2007, in Shamir et al., 2007). As such, it is possible to take note of the analysis to make an outline of manner in which followers develop in the literature on leadership. In accordance to Shamir (2007, in Shamir et al., 2007), it is possible to point out five followers’ roles in the present literature on leadership. These include followers as recipients of the influence of the leader; followers as moderators of the influence of the leader; followers as substitutes for the leadership; followers as leadership’s constructs; and followers as themselves leaders. Followers as Recipients of the Influence of the Leader The main focus of the basic theories on leadership is on the leader and make point emphasis on their personal background, as well as the traits and actions of the leader in perspective. On the other hand, there is a consideration of the followers as mere recipients of the influence of the leader. As such, leadership is perceived as  “a one‐way event – the leader affects the subordinates” (Shamir 2007, in Shamir et al. 2007). The behaviors and characteristics of the leader are perceived as independent variables, while the behaviors and perceptions of the follower are viewed as dependent variables. This basic perception of shared by the most recent (contemporary) as well as the pre-modern theories on leadership, including the charismatic and transformational leadership (Oc & Bashshur, 2013). In the view point of this line of research, there is a less active role that is played by followers in the process of leadership, but are perceived as “an empty vessel waiting to be led, or even transformed, by the leader” (Goffee & Jones, 2009, p.148). As such, the followers evidently become the recipients of the leaders’ influence within the organization or department of an organization. Followers as Moderators of the Impacts of the Leader There are other theoretical basis and arguments that posit that the characteristics of followers tends to moderate the influence of the leader on the follower. As is mentioned by (Shamir 2007, in Shamir et al. 2007), these theoretical viewpoints, viz, the contingency theories posit that the effect of the leader on the follower is subject to the influence of the traits of the followers themselves. For instance, according to the situational leadership theory accentuated by Thompson & Glasø (2015), it is claimed that effective leadership is arrived at through the selection of the style of leadership that fits the level of maturity of the follower, inclusive of their motivation and ability. In addition, further acknowledgment by Qu et al. (2015) of the fact that there is a level to which the characteristics of followers act as a moderation to the influence of the leaders on the followers. These authors argue that the effectiveness of a style of leadership that is participative is contingent upon the knowledge of the followers regarding issues of decision, and whether or not they express similarity in values with the leader. In the view point of this line of research, the followers are positioned as recipients of the influence of the leaders, as well as moderators of the impacts of the leader. Nonetheless, in the perspective of the traditional viewpoint, the theoretical approach equally offers priority to the leaders. In so doing, it addresses the followers in regards to the manner in which they respond to given behaviors of the leader.

Followers and Leadership Substitutes Considering research makes emphasis on the possible role of followers as substitutes of the leaders. Research conducted by Shamir (2007, in Shamir et al. 2007), intuit that the followers are offered a potential more dominant role by the theory of substitute for leadership, relative to other previous research. The main argument in this line of theory is that there are particular conditions or factors which can derogate the essence of leadership. For instance, some of the traits of followers including high ability and motivation, a concrete understanding of the norms that offer support to performance of tasks, among others, have the potential of neutralizing how much effect the leader has on the followers. In this sense, the theory is perceived as being increasingly radical compared to the other ones (Meuser, et al., 2016), considering the perception of leadership as being less necessary in given contexts. This therefore gives more justification to followership as opposed to leadership. Followers as Leadership Constructors The theories that present leadership as being social constructed offer a much more key role to followership in practice. Some of the theoretical frameworks offer a cognitive explanation with respect to leadership and its construction. Some of these include, among others, Followers are given a much more central role in the theories that present leadership as socially constructed. Among others, Blom & Alvesson (2014) and Spisak et al. (2015). According to Blom and Alvesson, for example, leadership is mentioned as being a perception that results from the bias of members of an organization in comprehending imperative but causally “ambiguous” occurrences and events within the organization with respect to leadership (Blom & Alvesson, 2014). The members of an organization tend to make ascription to power as well as causality to leaders thus leading to the achievement of a control and understanding within their given environment. Spisak et al. (2015) on the other hand mention the kind of reasoning in this respect as being the “romance of leadership”. To a greater extent therefore, the influence on the leadership comes from the manner in which the followers construct the leadership. Through a focus on the follower as the leadership constructor in perspective, Meindl, (1995) tends to challenge the initial perspectives on leadership, which to a greater extent, made much emphasis on idealized leaders. It is possible to view the works of this theorist as being centered on the follower, due to the attempt to counter some of the existing mythical beliefs of heroism in leadership, through a critical focus on followership. Shared Leadership: Followers as Leaders An increasingly radical viewpoint is offered by the theories of “shared, distributed, or dispersed leadership”, particularly with regards to followers and leaders. As is noted by Shamir (2007, in Shamir et al. 2007), it is possible to achieve shared leadership, a perspective in which the followers assume the position of the leader. The approach of self-leadership and that of works teams that are self-managing have firm bases on the “substitutes for leadership theory”. In both the two approaches, leadership is perceived as being an activity or function that can potentially be shared among members of an organization. The central argument in the theories is that there need not be any fixed duty that the followers are entitled to, neither leaders. Rather, there needs to be a regard of everyone as being both a follower, as well as a leader, in equal measure (Shamir 2007, in Shamir et al. 2007). As a matter of fact, it is possible for one to reason that the approach of shared leadership is neither follower centric, nor is it leader centric. This is so due to its rejection of the existing distinction between followers and leaders. Yet, with the assigning of active and central roles to followers, the theories of shared leadership tends towards being more follower centric, as opposed to being leader centric (Pearce, et al., 2008). The above discourse offers a description of the development of follower’s role from a passive position, one who receives the influence of the leader, to a more central role, within the context of leadership relationship. The trend of an increased recognition of the followers as playing an intrinsic role within the leadership equation has offered greater encouragement and maturity to research on followership in its own right. Ethical Implications There are a number of substantial ethical imperatives that emanate from the above research and analysis, and these can be understood in this breakdown. First, evidence continues to pile up with respect to the imperative of relational qualities in the unity of followers and leaders. One key aspect of the leader-follower correlation is the manner in which the leader perceives themselves, relative to the followers, and the manner in which the followers in turn perceive the leader. In as much as the concept of ethics has drawn the attention of many researchers, the absence of in-depth research prevents the much necessary uncovering of the explanatory approach that links ethical leadership to the followers’ outcome (Newman, et al., 2014). Majority of literary works have been able to assess the correlation between the attitude of employees and ethical leadership, or extra-role behaviors, or counter-productive. These include aspects such as compassion, emotional exhaustion, misconduct, moral cognition, creativity. Deviance, voice, bullying, whistleblowing, sharing of knowledge, as well as citizenship behavior within the organization (Ahmad, et al., 2019). It is quite reasonable to realize that the ethical example that a leader in contact connection with followers sets has a big influence on the awareness of the followers of, as well as their attitude with respect to ethical codes, which, subsequently influences the manner in which they perform their tasks. Within the corporate world, the code of ethics within organizations has become quite common. Majority of companies within the United States, for instance, incorporate code of ethics within their operations from as early as the 1980s and the 1990s. Contemporarily, the institution of policies for management of ethics has become a worldwide trend. In 1991, “The US Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations” was enacted, and led to the advancement of the utilization of the corporate code of ethics (Hess, et al., 2005). The guidelines mentioned that those organization that never established essential systems of ethics or initiate incentives towards the prevention of unethical acts would suffer punishment should there occur any corporate crime. Nonetheless, the same guidelines also make specification that those organizations having essential systems of ethics or “ethics committees” are subject to legibility for penalty relief. Most of the U.S. corporate entities were encouraged by these guidelines towards establishing departments of ethics management and systems of ethics (Hess, et al., 2005). At the level of an organization, the extent, absence, or presence of ethics system is variable. However, the manner in which ethics is perceived remains at the individual level. Were the codes of ethics to be examined just at the level of the organization, it would not be possible to see the variations in the ethical perceptions amongst members of the organization. As such, in spite of the variation in the code of ethics at the level of organizations, there is need for a study at the level of individuals if an understanding of the organizational ethics is to be realized. There are scholars who suggest that studies of ethics at the micro-organizational level makes much consideration of the perceptions of the members of the organization with much importance as opposed to the actual organizational codes of ethics. This is so since it is possible to achieve significant effects in the existence of accurate communication of the codes to all members of an organization. Taking a look at the accounting fraud which led to the bankruptcy of Enron, a U.S. company did not come about as a result of lack of corporate ethics or policy on ethics within the organization. For sure, Enron had well-stipulated and elaborate polices and codes of ethics. The Enron case offers insights to the effect that the provision of elaborate code of ethics within corporate entities can be futile in the absence of accurate behaviors and perceptions of the member of the organization. Within the workplace, the followers who express a tendency of interaction with their leaders express greater proximal relationships with their leaders, compared to those followers with less frequent interactions with their leaders (Antonakis & Atwater, 2002). The social learning theory, (Akers & Jennings, 2015), elaborates that the existence of a proximal relationship has the capability of strengthening the level of influence that the leader has on the attitude of the followers towards their organization or the leadership itself. The frequency with which the leader and the follower interact has a strengthening effect on the role of the ethical leadership of managers in the mediation of performance of work through the perceived salience of employees of the ethics code of the organization. More specifically, the strength of the mediating effect increases with the increase in frequency of interaction between the leader and the follower. The ethical implications in this respect can be mentioned as a possible “demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision-making”. The suggestion offered by Brown et al. (2005) is that the existence of ethical leadership within an organization is on the basis of social learning theory. Moreover, the social learning theory in perspective can be best understood as offering an explanation for the existence of a causal relationship between the followers’ outcomes and the leaders’ ethics. This construct of ethical leadership is imperative in gaining an in-depth understanding of the contribution of leadership ethics in the outcomes of followers. The perspective of social learning with respect to ethical leadership presents an argument that it is easy for ethical leaders to become role models who are legitimate and attractive within their respective place of work. There is a great degree of influence that ethical leaders pose on their followers, in such a way that they gain knowledge of their behaviors, and work towards promoting the increased self-efficacy of the followers with the aim of work potential maximization. On a similar note, Brown & Treviño (2006) had previously assumed a perspective of social exchange in proposing that the ethical leaders tend to offer encouragement to the followers in believing that these leaders have in mind, their best interests, and that they are mindful about them. The perception of the followers of how ethically they are treated by their leaders will ensure that they are able to reciprocate through an improvement of how they perform their tasks. Ethical leadership was proposed by Brown et al. (2005) as a context through which there is independent performance of ethical behaviors by the leaders, with the encouragement of ethical behaviors amongst their followers. In this sense, it is possible to observe that the role of a leader as the moral manager towards the promotion of the ethical behaviors of followers is just as vital as the role of the leader as an individually moral person, who carries out his ethical behaviors. In comparison to the other styles of leadership, ethical leadership is a construct making emphasis on the duty of moral leaders. Ethical behaviors are demonstrated by ethical leaders within the working environment (Jordan, et al., 2013). They display exemplary characters that are perceived as appropriate normatively by their followers, and those leaders behaving in a manner perceived as caring, fair, trustworthy, and honest are perceived as being reliable and righteous role models by their followers. Moreover, it is a personal prerogative of ethical leaders to express behavior that are normatively appropriate, and urge their followers to do similar actions on the basis of active communication. In addition, there is a consideration of the ethical value of outcomes that is a characteristic of ethical leaders, as a result of their decision making, and their choices are equitable and on the basis of the principles of ethics. Lastly, through the modelling of their followers’ ethical standards, the ethical leaders are able to inculcate behaviors within their followers which have a correspondence to the ethical standards. Their followers are also encouraged to express compliance with the ethical standards when contrary behaviors are corrected by the leader. With respect to the theory of employee-organizational relationship, the members of a given organization tend to form associations with the leaders of their organizations and view their leaders as representative agents for their company (Coyle-Shapiro & Shore, 2007). As such, it is possible to interpret the actions of a leader as the actions of the organization, a case in which, with the ethical clarity of the leaders’ actions, members of the organization will be able to make a clear perception of the code of ethics of the organization. There are more understanding and learning opportunities for those followers working with leaders exhibiting ethical leadership, and such followers can possible develop the perceived salience of the code of ethics of the organization. Appropriateness of Theoretical and Methodological Approaches & Research Techniques The appropriateness of the theoretical and methodological approaches and research techniques that have been used in this essay can be discussed with respect to their strengths and weaknesses. Basically, this involves the strengths and weaknesses of followership construction models and theories. Strengths The implicit followership prototype of the follower as discussed in the above theories present a scenario of gaining an understanding of the different behaviors and attitudes of subordinates, and express the characteristics of their followers in the actual work of organizations. Through these methodological and theoretical approaches, it becomes clear that the following behavior of the follower is determined by their implicit prototype, thus affecting following traits of the individual. This is therefore vital in giving readers an overview of the essence of the possible relatively stable development of an organization, to such a level that the passive followers make choice of the “status quo” of the mode of following. These theories also point out that with an organizational development that is challenging and rapid change, it becomes an initiative that is more accepting. It is important to consider that within an organization, there is an intrinsic need for followers to be positioned in such a way that they are able to dare challenges and question some of the decisions made by the leader, since this is essential in the effectiveness of the leadership activities and the organization as a whole. In this respect, some of the theoretical approaches such as the social learning theory have vital strength in developing a perspective of the norm in the social constructions of followership within organization. Carsten et al. (2010) also make systematic discussion of how implicit followership prototype poses an influence on the behavior and attitudes of the followers, which opens even deeper insights into the subject matter. The methodological approach used by Carsten et al. (2010) is that of interviewing in order to separate the followers’ implicit followership prototype into three basic categories: the passive, the active, and the proactive. The main theoretical argument by Carsten et al. is that the kind of implicit followership prototype that is existence in followers is objective in the determination of the following characteristics of these followers. Arguably, these reasoning are vital in enabling a resound approach to followership as a new specialism in leadership within contemporary organizations. The main point of discourse in previous studies has been basically based on the level and nature of influence of the following prototype on the on the wellbeing and work behavior of employees. Overall, these add value to the general and specific understanding of the essence of followership within organizations, in the context of leadership specialism. Weaknesses The realization of some of the weaknesses of theoretical and methodological approaches is vital important. In addition, the application of the weaknesses in perspective to develop them into strengths is another aspect of approach that in most cases aids in the development of key insights with respect to social construction of followership within organizational settings. From the above discourse, the greatest weakness noted in the methodological and theoretical approaches used is that there is no best way through which the leadership-followership phenomenon can be demonstrated. The various approaches that are suggested by some of theoretical frameworks only make an exemplification of the leaders’ success towards posing an influence on the followers. However, these theories fail to address an imperative paradox: the combination of the dominant perspective of leadership as a broadly celebrated, important and positive social practice; with concomitant acknowledgment of the minor enthusiasm that some of the followers may be feeling for leaders within their routine duties, due to the possible unappealing experience that followership position may be accompanied with. The other important element of weakness is that as opposed to a possible acceptance and reproduction of the assumption that there is a broad perception of leadership as welcome and god (by the followers), we, the readers, can be able to consider a counter-assumption. For instance, one may argue that in most cases, there is dispassion in leader-follower relations since majority of people may not want to be perceived as followers in the first place. Such individuals may not be ready to have their leader be the definer of what is right in terms of meanings, beliefs, and values for them. This therefore in essence expresses the weakness of the theoretical and methodological approaches, since, in a nutshell, they can be easily challenge. Conclusion This paper mainly aimed at offering a perspective of leadership and management specialism within the contemporary society. The major theme focus was on a critical reference to “Carsten et al (2010) - Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study”, situating it within the existing theoretical frameworks and literature, to gain an incisive understanding of its relevance to the subject matter. In the first section, this paper has comprehensively highlighted an overview of the above article, locating studies within the wider debate, regarding purposes for educational research and political context. The second section of this paper did conduct a critical literature review, with reference to the wider research within followership as a specific area of specialism. This essay then discussed the ethical implications of the undertaken research in the third section, and the manner in which these have been addressed. Finally, the paper has made a concise highlight of the appropriateness of the theoretical and methodological approaches undertaken, and the employed research techniques, through a discourse of the strengths and weaknesses.

List of References Ahmad, I., Donia, M.B., Khan, A., and Waris, M., 2019. Do as I say and do as I do? The mediating role of psychological contract fulfillment in the relationship between ethical leadership and employee extra-role performance. Pers. Rev, 48, pp. 98–117. Akers, R.L. and Jennings, W.G., 2015. Social learning theory. The Handbook of Criminological Theory, 4, pp.230-240. Antonakis, J. and Atwater, L., 2002. Leader distance: A review and a proposed theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), pp.673-704. Blom, M. and Alvesson, M., 2014. Leadership On Demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of managerial leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3), pp.344-357. Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Harrison, D.A., 2005. Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 97(2), pp.117-134. Brown, M.E. and Treviño, L.K., 2006. Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The leadership quarterly, 17(6), pp.595-616. Carsten, M.K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B.J., Patera, J.L. and McGregor, R., 2010. Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The leadership quarterly, 21(3), pp.543-562. Collinson, D., 2006. Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The leadership quarterly, 17(2), pp.179-189. Coyle-Shapiro, J.A. and Shore, L.M., 2007. The employee–organization relationship: Where do we go from here?. Human resource management review, 17(2), pp.166-179. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2009). Followership: It’s Personal, Too. Harvard Business Review, May, 148 Hess, D., McWhorter, R.S. and Fort, T.L., 2005. The 2004 amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines and their implicit call for a symbiotic integration of business ethics. Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L., 11, p.725. Jordan, J., Brown, M.E., Treviño, L.K. and Finkelstein, S., 2013. Someone to look up to: Executive–follower ethical reasoning and perceptions of ethical leadership. Journal of management, 39(3), pp.660-683. Meindl, J.R., 1995. The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The leadership quarterly, 6(3), pp.329-341. Meuser, J.D., Gardner, W.L., Dinh, J.E., Hu, J., Liden, R.C. and Lord, R.G., 2016. A network analysis of leadership theory: The infancy of integration. Journal of Management, 42(5), pp.1374-1403. Newman, A., Kiazad, K., Miao, Q. and Cooper, B., 2014. Examining the cognitive and affective trust-based mechanisms underlying the relationship between ethical leadership and organisational citizenship: A case of the head leading the heart?. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), pp.113-123. Oc, B. and Bashshur, M.R., 2013. Followership, leadership and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), pp.919-934. Pearce, C.L., Conger, J.A. and Locke, E.A., 2008. Shared leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), pp.622-628. Qu, R., Janssen, O. and Shi, K., 2015. Transformational leadership and follower creativity: The mediating role of follower relational identification and the moderating role of leader creativity expectations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), pp.286-299. Shamir, B., 2007. From Passive Recipients to Active Co‐Producers: Followers’ Roles in the Leadership Process. In: B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. C. Bligh, & M. Uhl‐Bien, Follower‐Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl (pp. ix‐xxxix). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing Inc.Thompson, G. and Glasø, L., 2015. Situational leadership theory: a test from three perspectives. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(5), pp.527-544. Spisak, B.R., O'Brien, M.J., Nicholson, N. and van Vugt, M., 2015. Niche construction and the evolution of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 40(2), pp.291-306. Uhl-Bien, M. and Pillai, R., 2007. The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. Followercentered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory of James R. Meindl, pp.187-209.