So far I’ve avoided reading books or articles that outline “follower typologies”. I simply don’t believe these categorizations are accurate. At best, they represent pigeon-holing for convenience, and at worst they are a dangerous watering down of the idea of followership -  a watering down similar to that which has occured to leadership as a result of the hundreds of definitions and typologies. A person is either a leader or is not a leader; similarly, a person is a follower or is not a follower.

Followership is an active choice to agree with the elevation of a person from the ingroup to a leadership position and to engage in activities that  support the elevation of that person as long as the person fills an ingroup need and guides ingroup actions in accordance with a set of shared ideas, values and interests. Followers are active supporters rather than passive hangers-on. Followers contribute to and support the ingroup because they share the same ideas, values and goals.

Those who don’t fit this definition are not followers. Rather they are outgroup resources that the leader and his or her followers can use to achieve their purposes. Even though they might look like “followers”, they are motivated primarily by a desire to avoid negative personal consequences for not complying with the authority of the ingroup leader or the power of the ingroup. Take for example the president or prime minister of a democracy. While that person is “in power” you will find people who actively claim him or her as their leader, but you will also find people who comply because that person is the president or prime minister. Failure to comply would potentially result in discomfort or negative consequences. The first group represents the followers. The second group does not - for them the president or prime minister is a person with authority but little more … and certainly not a leader. Typologies that ignore this distinction neither add value to our understanding of followership nor provide any meaningful predictive value with regard to the behavior of those not in the leadership position. Let’s dig a little deeper looking at some of the more established typologies.

Kelley’s typology lists and describes five types of “followers” - alienated, passive, conformist, prgamatic and exemplary. Of the five listed, only those he classifies as exemplary followers are actual followers. They engage strongly with the group and provide intelligent sensitive support and challenge to the leader. Alienated followers? People who do not commit readily to any leader? How does one justify calling this type of person a follower of any kind? At best these people are resources for the group to use. At worst they are non-entities insofar as the group’s purposes and values are concerned. The same can be said for passives and conformists … they offer no real support and constructive challenge to the ingroup. Pragmatics might be borderline but I am inclined to place them outside of the definition of follower because they do not really see themselves as a part of the ingoup. Like the other three non-follower groupings, they are motivated more by a desire to avoid negative personal consequences than by a desire to contribute to and support the ingroup.

Kellerman suggests that to be a “good” follower a person has to actively support effective and ethical leaders and respond appropriately to bad leaders. “Bad” followers are seen as making no contribution and supporting the wrong type of leader. I doubt that she is really suggesting that ethics and followership are intrically linked because history is full of examples of people I disgaree with ethically who have acted as leaders and followers. One has only to look at the Huns or Mongols to see that the ethics of a true follower and his or her leader do not have to be my own. One can even come a little closer to our own time and look at the Nazis. I abhor what they did but it is difficult for me to claim and support that they did not have among them people I would classify as followers.

Kellerman’s typology also lists five groups of “followers” - isolates, bystanders, participants, activists and diehards. Of the five, isolates and bystanders hold themselves seperate from the ingroup and contribute to their organizations only as needed to avoid negative personal consequences. These are obviously not followers but are resources for the organization to use in achieving its goals. The other three groups appear to be followers. They are seperated only by their degree of enthusiasm for achieving the ingroup’s values and goals. While I understand that people in leadership positions might like to understand how enthusiastic their followers are about particular objectives and plans, I don’t see level of enthusiasm as a criteria for disqualifying someone as a follower.

Chaleff’’s typology focuses on the extent to which followers support their leaders. It doesn’t appear to consider whether they offer challenge or other constructive input to the leader figure. The typology consists of four types - implementers, partners, individualists and resources. Of the four, individualists and resources are clearly not followers. They do what they do for the group to avoid possible negatives. Just as clearly, partners are obvious followers. They are ingroup members who chose to follow and contribute intelligently. I believe however that Chaleff has given insufficient thought to the implementer grouping. Key to understanding people in this group would be understanding why they are implementing. Is it because they perceive themselves as part of the ingroup and desire its success in achieving its goals? Or is it because they will lose their positions, suffer ridicule or some other negative consequence if they do not implement? Clearly the former should be considered followers while the latter are simply resources. I’m also a little uncomfortable that Chaleff does not consider the contribution or constructive challenge to the ingroup in this typology, especially for implementers.

I will be forthcoming and admit that I am working from summaries of these authors’ works. If I have erred in my interpretation of any of the typologies I would appreciate feedback and dialogue, either from the authors or their followers. I believe these typologies do a disservice to the discussion of followers and followership by watering down the definition and diverting attention from the core role of followers. I believe that a follower is a follower is a follower and I like to keep my classifications very simple.  There are folowers … there are resources … and there are opposers. Nothing more.