User:Vrgcor/Followership

A substantive understanding of the literature on followership and worker motivation first requires an examination of the origins of worker studies and motivational premises that provide the inchoate foundation for contemporary followership literature and motivational constructs. While much of the literature on followership has been written within the past twenty years; it nonetheless collectively reflects much earlier ideas regarding worker behavior and motivation. Robert Kelley wrote his seminal work The Power of Followership in 1991, his was not the first work on follower behavior. It was early in the 20th century that management scientists first began to study ways to increase worker productivity. Fredrick Taylor looked at job design while two decades later Mayo began to study the human side of worker productivity. Decades again passed before additional substantive literature on follower behavior was written. Subsequent to WWII, Stanley Milgram studied the extent to which obedience to authority governs follower behavior (Milgram, 1974 ). Contemporaneously, Abraham Zaleznik in 1965 was the first to publish taxonomy for follower types (Zaleznik, 1965). But it was more than 25 years later before followership gained standing as a more serious line of inquiry through the work of Robert Kelley in 1991 that identified followership along the dimensions of intellect and engagement. Shortly after Kelley’s work gained popularity, Ira Chaleff indentified followership along the dimensions of courage and support for the leader or organization. It was not for another ten years that Barbara Kellerman attempted to show the monolithic nature of followership. She posited that level of engagement was the only dimension needed to identify follower types. Contemporaneous to Kellerman’s work, the concept of rewards entered the discussion. Some author’s (for example Daniel Pink, 2009) have suggested that followership is more dependent on intrinsic rewards than external rewards. It is clear this idea is rooted in motivation and individual needs for food and safety, self-esteem and inclusion, and self-actualization has lain out by Maslow (Maslow, 1968). Evolution of Follower Literature Over the past 80 years numerous studies have attempted to explore, even dissect human behavior at work. Job design. During the last decade of the nineteenth century, the demise of the craft system congruent with agrarian economics ceding to industrial economics in the United States, the concept of job design in industrialized settings gained influence as a method to extract the greatest productivity from workers. Worker needs and motivations however, were never taken into account (Buhler, 2002, p. 173). Taylor used time and motion studies to find out the one best way to perform a task (p. 174). Once this was determined, in Taylor’s view, it was up to management to design jobs in the “one best way, and then it was the worker’s responsibility to perform the work in that one best way” (p. 174 ). The Human Side. Early in the twentieth century, Mayo was involved with a number of experiments to better understand industrial fatigue. He found there seemed to be little doubt among scientists and researchers that industrial fatigue had a simple answer (Mayo, 1933, p. 5). For example, according to Mayo, because physiological fatigue had been studied at length within laboratory settings and was known to be a function of certain chemical reactions in the body, researchers believed that a similar answer could be found for industrial fatigue. They knew as exercise continues, lactic acid builds within the muscles which is relieved by oxidation. If exercise creates an oxygen-debt then lactic acid builds up and results in fatigue, or an inability to continue (1933, p. 7). While this seemed simple enough, the conditions of fatigue produced in the laboratory, could not be reproduced in industrial settings. And despite a contemporary suggestion that the administration of sodium acid phosphate (a highly toxic pesticide) would banish industrial fatigue (p. 5), Mayo came to understand that there was no direct metric which could help define industrial fatigue as there were just too many variables to consider within an industrial setting. He settled by defining fatigue as a reduced capacity to work (p. 10). Monotony was also a question for Mayo. While expecting to find that monotony and repetitive work were one in the same, studies suggested this was not true. While the worker may be involved in just a few movements that do not vary throughout the day, the individual workers emotional status actually varied a great deal (Mayo, 1933, p. 36). Multiple studies in industrial settings made a strong case for Mayo that there were other elements involved than simple task repetition. The worker must deal with more than task repetition. Other aspects identified that impacted worker monotony include the relationship the worker has with superiors and colleagues; often in failing to please the former, and seeking support from the latter (p. 36). The social aspect of work was found to have a tremendous impact on workers thus justifying Mayo’s contention that there are several factors rather than just one that will produce the desired result. These factors included “a) external working conditions, b) the social-personal situation in its relation to the individuals concerned and c) individual differences of capacity and temperament” (p. 38) . Mayo believed that working in an industrial environment was humiliating in the performance of routine and over-simplified tasks in a setting in which one had no control produced feelings of anomie (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008, p. 48) . It is here in the evolution of followership literature that the idea first emerges that worker needs are beyond the physical; social-personal and self-esteem needs also play an important role.

Workers Relationship to Authority An important factor to consider in follower behavior is where the worker’s relationship to authority figures. Certainly an individual’s tendency toward obedience to authority plays a substantive role in worker behavior. Milgram contended that it was this aspect of followership, obedience to authority, which enabled the murderous atrocities committed by ordinary German soldiers. Of greatest interest to Milgram was the tendency to obey especially in the face of conflicting moral choices. During the 1960’s Milgram conducted a series of experiments in an attempt to answer that question. Milgram sought to understand the response of subjects who are told to act with increasing severity against another person and the circumstances under which subjects would obey and the conditions under which they would disobey (Milgram, 1974, p. xx). Milgram posited that the “essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as an instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions” (Milgram, 1974, p. xx). Once this shift to an agentic state occurs the door opens to all types of cruel and punishing behavior towards others with subjects stating they were simply following orders (p. 134). Like other theorists that came decades later (see for example Chaleff, 1991; Kellerman, 2008), Milgram’s experiments were motivated by a desire to understand the behavior of average German citizens during WWII. In a very broad sense, no one ever really stood up to Hitler and those who questioned his xenophobia were violently put down. Hitler never apologized for his intense anti-Semitism which he used to fuel the flames of hate throughout Europe. Milgram wanted to understand why average German soldiers would willingly participate in mass murder and other crimes against humanity simply because of orders and without regard for personal political or humanitarian beliefs. The genesis of these crimes may have started in the mind of only one individual; they could not have been carried out but for blind obedience on the part of the German soldier (Milgram, 1974, p. 1). This led to Milgram’s position that an action carried out under orders is of a profoundly different nature in the mind of the follower than an action that is spontaneous (Milgram, 1974, p. xix). Milgram’s obedience experiments. Milgram’s experiments were important as they helped form the basis of understanding concerning how individuals respond to non-coercive authority and conditions of obedience. The first set of experiments involved a set of Yale graduate students who agreed to participate as subjects. There were three dynamics or roles within the experiments—that of experimenter, teacher, and student. Unbeknownst to the subjects, the role of student was pre-arranged to be played by a fellow experimenter rather than by one of the other subjects as they had been led to believe (Milgram, 1974, pp. 16-19 ). The subject was positioned in front of an elaborate machine that apparently delivered high voltage shocks ranging from 15 volts all the way to 450 volts. Through a two-way mirror, the subject, or teacher, could see that the student had electrodes attached to his body that were connected to the machines, or so the subjects were told. The teacher was to give word pairs to the students who would then provide inaccurate answers to the teacher. Upon receiving an inaccurate answer the experimenter instructed the teacher to administer the first set shocks at 15 volts. With each repeated wrong answer, the teacher-subject was instructed to increase the voltage level. The idea was to see how far the teacher-subjects would go in administering the shocks or at what point, if any, they would rebel and disobey the experimenter’s instructions (Milgram, 1974, pp. 21-22). The results of the experiments were both insightful and frightening. Milgram found that the majority of teachers, while expressing doubt and even concern for the student who was visibly and audibly suffering from the shocks, most teachers continued to shock the students all the way up to 450 volts. (Milgram, 1974). Further experiments designed to look at the role of proximity to the victim told an interesting story. Here four experiments were carried out with varying levels of proximity to the victim ranging from remote to actually touching the victim (Milgram, 1974, p. 33). When proximity was remote, 65% of the subjects administered shocks all the way to 450 volts (Milgram, 1974, p. 35). Under conditions where the subject could hear cries of pain from the victim, 62.5% continued the shocks to the maximum level (p. 35). When the victim was brought into the same room as the subject where the suffering of the victim could be both seen and heard, 40% continued the shocks to the maximum level (p. 35). Finally, under circumstances that required subjects to physically touch the victim in order to administer the shocks, a full 30% remained obedient to the experimenter and continued the shocks to 450 volts (Milgram, 1974, p. 35) The agentic state. Milgram’s experiments helped to explain why individuals will follow even toxic leaders. He found that obedience in followers tends to be sequential, in that performing small acts of obedience generally lead to performing more ethically questionable ones (Kellerman, 2008, p. 60). He also pointed out that followership involves social relationships and that individuals are more likely to perform ethically or morally problematic acts of obedience they see their peers performing (p. 61). Most importantly, Milgram identified the agentic nature of followership. Followers often see themselves as an extension of their own authority figure and will cede all blame for their actions to the authority figure as they were only acting as an agent rather than under own authority. They further this stance with the ideological framework of the ends justifying the means. (p. 61). For Milgram “the disappearance of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority” (Milgram, 1974, p. 8). The fact that Milgram’s experiments involved non-coercive authority is even more telling and has far reaching implications for how followers would behave under coercive situations (Blass, 2008, p. 201). The Dysfunctional Follower Contemporaneous to Milgram’s obedience experiments, Abraham Zaleznik was the first to identify follower types. However Zaleznik’s model was based more on discontents rather than followers that support organizational goals. He believed that subordinacy conflicts lay beneath the conscious awareness of individual workers and could explode into behaviors with deep emotional substance; thereby impacting communication between superiors and subordinates (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 120). Identifying that subordinancy involves a response, or behavior, to transactions between seniors and subordinates here represent the embryonic ideas expressed by Kellerman nearly forty-five years later as represented in the definition of followership provided her book:“The response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship (rank) between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of the former to the latter” (Kellerman, 2008, p. xx) (original emphasis). In Zaleznik’s model subordinate performance was two dimensional. The first dimension deals with the polarity between workers desires to dominate vs. their desire to be dominated by authority. The second dimension relates to the polarity between activity and passivity or the workers distinctive patterns of behavior to initiate or intrude in one’s environment vs. the tendency to sit back and wait to be told what to do (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 120). Using these dimensions, Zaleznik identified “four patterns of subordinancy, particularly to illustrate types of inner conflict (p. 120). Impulsive subordinates. The impulsive subordinate represents an individual who is highly motivated to both initiate action and dominate authority figures. This is done either through overt rebellion, or more commonly though efforts to undermine authority at every opportunity (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 121). This individual is frequently aggressive and often enjoys an inner fantasy involving a rival (p. 121). Zaleznik allows that not all impulsive and rebellious activity is negative. These impulsive subordinates were defined by their level of self control. Those with a high level of self control may provide the frank and open comments to authority that can actually lead to positive organizational change. However, Zaleznik stresses that “the line between impulsivity as a constructive and a destructive character trait is difficult to draw” (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 121). Compulsive subordinates. The compulsive subordinate also seeks to dominate but in a more passive-aggressive manner than the outright aggression often seen in Impulsives. The passivity seen in Compulsives is used as a form of control. It generally includes indirect and manipulative attempts at influence in order to control the outcome of a given situation (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 123). Compulsives are marked by doubt, attitude reversals, hidden aggression and denial of responsibility (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 124). Denial of responsibility represents the fundamental nature of “dominance through passivity” (p. 124). Compulsives tend to believe that all conflict and problems are influenced from without rather than from within and that their own thoughts, actions, or behaviors do not influence events. It is always the fault of some other (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 124). This denial of responsibility can be seen as a reflection of Milgram’s definition of the agentic state in which a follower abrogates responsibility believing to be acting as an instrument of another’s will (Milgram, 1974, p. 134). Masochistic subordinates. The masochistic subordinate literally seeks criticism and aggression from authority figures. Zaleznik posits that self-punishing behavior accomplishes two important tasks for the masochist. First, it frequently draws sympathy or attention, but more importantly, it invites control from others and as seen with the Compulsives renounces personal responsibility (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 125). The masochistic subordinate frequently favors the underdog or others for whom it is believed exist within an oppressive situation. However the masochist frequently sees oppression where none exists. Instances of true oppression notwithstanding, “the ability to discriminate between real and imagined inequity is absent in the individual who organizes his experiences around identification with the oppressed” (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 125). Withdrawn subordinates. The withdrawn subordinate is both submissive and passive in interactions with superiors. These subordinates are often impervious to the influence of superiors as a result of distrust and a generally misanthropic world view. Submission and passivity may make for a loyal worker and handle routine effort well but is unlikely to perform beyond minimal organizational standards (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 126). Zaleznik points out that while others “attribute withdrawal and apathy to oppressive conditions in an organization’s authority structure, the evidence supports the view that their genesis lie’s in the individual’s developmental history” (Zaleznik, 1965, p. 126). With the verisimilitude of Freud, Zaleznik viewed all of these conflicts as a constant repetition of unresolved developmental patterns of control. Zaleznik’s model is important to the study of followership as it was the first to suggest that there were different follower types from whom different levels of productivity could be expected. However an important limitation to his model is his focus on the more malevolent aspects of follower behavior. Limiting the discussion to negative follower characteristics makes no allowance for positive follower characteristics such as capacity for judgment, critical thinking, or courage. Critical Thinking Not a lot was written on the subject of followership as an independent concern for nearly three more decades following the work of Zaleznik and Milgram. However in 1991, Kelley introduced the position that followership is a function of two dimensions; capacity for independent, critical thinking (Kelley, 1992, p. 93) and level of engagement (p. 94). Like Zaleznik, Kelley adopted his own taxonomy of follower types. Kelley’s assumptions however were founded in the more positive aspects of followership rather than focusing primarily on dysfunctional followers. Kelley divided followers among five types based on both level of engagement and capacity for critical thinking. The alienated follower. Kelley’s discussion of the alienated follower describes an individual, whose sense of self includes maverick behavior, frequently playing the devil’s advocate and a tendency to stick up for the little person (Kelley, 1992, p. 99). Leadership often carries a different opinion of this individual, viewing their behavior as troublesome and negative (p. 99). Alienated followers frequently are seen as having a chip on their shoulder and adversarial to the point of hostility (p. 99). These individuals commonly feel they have been treated unfairly by management and perhaps even exploited by leaders putting their own needs ahead of followers (p. 99). The conformist follower. Individuals high in their level of engagement but low in their ability for critical, independent thinking, Kelley labeled as conformists. These are the followers that are commonly thought of as team players eagerly accepting whatever work assigned (Kelley, 1992, p. 107). Conformists may also be judged as unoriginal, overly compliant and conflict averse (p. 107). On many occasions, conformists find themselves working for organizations where procedure takes precedence over outcomes and are led by an oppressive leader or culture (p. 108). The pragmatist follower. Pragmatists, as the label implies, tend to be politically savvy, respecting the status quo in terms of rules and regulations and generally deft at maintaining perspective. Some may interpret their actions less benevolently opining their behavior is largely bureaucratic; motivated by political gamesmanship and self interest (Kelley, 1992, p. 116). Pragmatists may be found in impersonal organizations with a distinctly transactional culture in which deal-cutting is the accepted way of getting things done (p. 117). The passive follower. Passive followers have no real interest in decision making. They act only on orders and lack both the capacity for critical thinking and the drive to intrude on their environment. These followers require direct supervision in order to be productive and just barely meet minimum organizational standards for performance and attitude (Kelley, 1992, p. 123). The exemplary follower. Exemplary followers, Kelley posited, are those followers who have both the intellectual capacity for critical thinking but are also highly engaged in their environment. (Kelley, 1992, p. 125). These are the followers who take ownership of their work and of their responsibilities to the organization. Usually considered to be self-starters that use the best of their talents for the benefit of the organization, exemplary followers balance independent thinking and engagement without falling short of goals or becoming bureaucratic sycophants (p. 127). A distinct limitation to Kelley’s theories is an over-reliance on the capacity for critical thinking as a fundamental dimension of follower behavior. While intellectual capacity matters within the context of followership, it may be over-stating things to consider it as fundamental. Not all positions require a substantial level of critical thinking and there are in fact some positions that would be much less satisfactory for those who have greater intellectual capacity. At the risk of ushering in a reality similar to a Brave New World (Huxley, 1932) a wise man known to the researcher once said: “The world needs ditch diggers too” (Corbett, 1998). Kelley was right to focus on engagement, but his focus on critical thinking may be an unfair metric with which to judge follower motivation and attitudes. Perhaps the ability to speak truth to authority may be a more appropriate dimension of followership than intellectual capacity. Courage to Authority The ability to speak frankly and honestly to authority, while ripe with consequences, is a key trait not just for effective followers but for effective organizations as well (Chaleff, 2003). Just a few years after Kelley published his seminal work on followership, another researcher was developing his own taxonomy of follower types. Once again evaluating followership along two dimensions, Chaleff posited that it was the courage to challenge authority in the face of leader behaviors that undermine an organizations purpose, and the support shown for the leader or organization that defined follower behavior (Chaleff, 2003, p. 40). The partner. In Chaleff’s model, the partner is the most ideal follower type as this is someone with a high level of support for their leader or organization but also has the courage to challenge their authority in cases where the leader’s behavior is likely to weaken or destabilize the organization (Chaleff, 2003, p. 41). A partner follower could have perhaps obviated problems with “Chainsaw Al Dunlap” first at Scott Paper, if not later at Sunbeam (Kellerman, 2004, pp. 130-131) but unfortunately Dunlap was not the type to keep partner followers around. The implementer. Many leaders like to have implementers on their staff because they can be reliably counted upon to do their work well and to be loyal to their leader and organization as a whole (Chaleff, 2003, p. 40). These are not the followers most likely speak up in the face of intemperate or immoral behavior from their leaders. Were they to take the initiative and challenge authority, there is a strong tendency to drop the issue upon being rebuffed by their leader (p. 41). The individualist. This type of follower has no problem challenging authority but support for the leader or organization is so low that they often find themselves marginalized. Because they have low support for their leaders and organization, the confrontational nature exhibited by such followers may be seen by others as predictably hyper-critical (Chaleff, 2003, p. 42). These are often the naysayers who want their voices to be heard on any number of subjects but are unwilling to act upon their criticisms (p. 43). The resource. Low in both support for their leader and courage to challenge authority, the resource follower is the individual who while putting in an honest day’s work has priorities that lay elsewhere (Chaleff, 2003, p. 42). Not to imply the resource as one that is lazy or incompetent, they simply remain uncommitted to the organization and avoid drawing attention to themselves (p. 43). Their focus is on meeting minimum job requirements in order to better address their other life priorities. While Chaleff was mainly concerned with how followers behaved in the workplace and specifically within the framework of large organizations. Like both Milgram and Kellerman, his interest was motivated by a desire to understand WWII atrocities. He in fact introduced his book stating that he “had been absorbed with the subject of followership … since becoming aware as a child of the systematic destruction of six million European Jews by the Nazis during WWII” (Chaleff, 2003, p. xvii). Chaleff’s model comes a bit closer to identifying the follower types that help illustrate follower motivation, however it is limited by a lack of understanding of human motivation and the role that rewards play in that dynamic. Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic Rewards The role that reward plays in influencing follower motivation is complex. From all the theories presented thus far, one thing seems clear. The key to understanding followership is to understand that multiple factors are involved, some of which vary greatly from one work setting to another. As evidenced by Mayo’s work, the type of job and the level of repetition appear to be independent of worker motivation. In one factory setting, workers were malcontents while in another, workers thrived on performing well while performing very similar repetitive tasks (Mayo, 1933, p. 35). What Mayo and fellow researchers Smith and Culpin ultimately found was that “the repetitive work was a thread of the total pattern, but it is not the total pattern” (p. 36, original italics) .Without a doubt, the type of work is generally independent of follower motivation. So what does influence follower motivation? Some have suggested that followers may be motivated by an extrinsic reward-punishment system. As advocated by Taylor nearly a century ago, workers were just one of many parts in an intricate piece of machinery and when workers performed as directed the machine ran smoothly. Therefore the simple solution was to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior (Pink, 2009, p. 19 ).`As early as the 1950’s however, there was a growing school of thought, largely based on the work of Maslow that workers had other needs that if met would increase engagement and motivation. McGregor for example presented two fundamental theories of worker motivation widely known as Theor y X and Theory Y (Drucker, 2007, p. 219). Theory X and theory Y. McGregor hypothesized that the traditional organization assumed workers were lazy, incompetent and uninterested in assuming greater responsibility; thus supporting the idea that “money, fringe benefits and the threat of punishment motivate people (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2008, p. 48). Referring to this model as Theory X, McGregor questioned whether this construct of motivation was effective for reaching organizational goals (p. 49). Alternatively, drawing heavily from Maslow’s work, McGregor developed Theory Y of worker motivation which suggested that “people can be self-directed and creative at work if properly motivated” (p. 51). Under this model, the individual needs of workers beyond the physiological were fundamental in developing a more productive organization. Hierarchy of needs. Maslow believed that happy, healthy individuals whose basic physiological needs have been met are more concerned with increasing their potential or self-improvement than with simple monetary rewards (Maslow, 1968, p. 31). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs set forth a model for human motivation based on the idea that needs are based on prepotency. Once physiological needs are met (as food and safety are most prepotent), an individual’s higher needs for inclusion and self-esteem kick in and once these needs are satisfied, self-actualization becomes the primary or prepotent motivator (Maslow, 1968). Maslow postulated that while not everyone reaches self-actualization as each of the preceding needs are indeed prepotent, he maintained that it is this level to which most people strive. He calls this mind-set growth-motivated while calling those at lower levels of the hierarchy deficiency-motivated. (Maslow, 1968, p. 31). “Growth is seen then not only as a progressive gratification of basic needs to the point where they ‘disappear’, but also in the form of specific growth motivations over and above these basic needs, e.g., talents, capacities, creative tendencies” (Maslow, 1968, p. 33). For people whose needs involve growth and self-development, motivation involves something entirely different. Work must be meaningful and involve intrinsic motivation in which the pleasure of the work itself satisfies the need for self-actualization as opposed to pay or even recognition (Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009, p. 67). This truly seminal work on human behavior provided the basis for much of what we now know regarding worker motivation. Engagement As noted, studies to better understand worker engagement as a means for increasing organizational performance have been going on for nearly one hundred years. Of the theorists on follower types so far, only Kelley considered engagement to be one of the dimensions of effective followership (Kelley, 1992). It was more than 15 years later that Kellerman hypothesized engagement as the only dimension of followership; defining her types on a single continuum of ranging from the Isolate to the Diehard (Kellerman, Followership, 2008, p. 85). In Kellerman’s model rank is presumed and as seen with Zaleznik, Kellerman recognized the subordinate level of followers and as previously noted regards followership in terms of a behavioral response to authority. (Kellerman, 2008). Isolates. These are the individuals who are not only uninformed; they do not care to be informed (Kellerman, 2008, p. 87). They remain completely detached in their work and their interest in their leaders or organization simply does not exist. These individuals think of themselves as powerless and in their inaction help maintain the status quo (p. 88). Bystanders. Kellerman posited that these individuals are the most dangerous to the organization. They deliberately choose to disengage from their environment. Unlike the Isolate who remains blissfully unaware, the Bystander observes but refuses to participate. Kellerman noted that it was the Bystanders in Germany in the 1930’s that enabled Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent atrocities (Kellerman, 2008, p. 104). Participants. These individuals are generally engaged in their work in some way and while some are supportive of their leaders and organizations, some are opposed and can work to undermine organizational goals (Kellerman, 2008, p. 125). Whether for good or negative intentions, Participants tend to put their money where their mouth is, using their efforts to create impact in the organization (p. 125). Activists. These individuals are agents of change. They are mostly enthusiastic and excited about their work and in supporting organizational goals (Kellerman, 2008, p. 151). On the other hand, Activists can also be dangerous if they become dissatisfied or feel marginalized. Their subordinancy notwithstanding, these individuals can destabilize an organization (p. 152). Diehards. These individuals are more likely to be found in the military than in the average organization. Diehards are all-consuming individuals willing to risk their lives for the sake of the cause. (Kellerman, 2008, p. 179). Kellerman allows that Diehards are rare, but in an age of suicide-bombers they cannot be dismissed (p. 179). A general limitation to Kellerman’s hypotheses is lack of definition in what actually creates engagement. Perhaps as Kellerman suggests, engagement is the ultimate goal; then a focus on what creates engagement is missing. Finally in Kellerman’s allowance of the fact that different levels of engagement can create both positive and negative results fails to provide the necessary differentiation between desirable followers and undesirable ones. Summary From Taylor to Kellerman and everyone in between, efforts to determine the fundamental foundation or dimensions for followership have fallen short. It was clear even to Mayo that other variables were involved in fatigue than muscle stress and that monotony and repetition of task did not mean the same thing (Mayo, 1933). Milgram learned that obedience to authority plays a substantive role in follower behavior (Milgram, 1974). The degree to which followers will blindly follow their leaders is even more important to understand in the 21st century than in Milgram’s time. In an age of wide-spread terrorism and suicide bombings, understanding the role obedience plays in fringe groups may lay an important foundation for effectively combating such followers. Maslow has presented a clear picture regarding prepotency of needs. Perhaps a better understanding of where individual followers are positioned in terms of needs fulfillment would provide an increased understanding of their motivation and what can be done to enhance it. Whatever the case may be our understanding of followership and motivation is incomplete. Further study on the influences of characteristics that might influence followership and motivation is necessary, but due to the sheer number of variables involved a complete answer may not be possible.