On Demand, but When? Scrutinizing Leadership on Demand Based on the Follower-Centric Leadership Approaches

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 20 Sayı: 3, 955 - 974

Salim Alioğlu , Ozan Ağlargöz

Öz

The main purpose of this research is to determine when and under what conditions followers, especially knowledge workers, are in need of leaders. In order to achieve this aim, the “Leadership on Demand Scale” was developed. The research population consists of middle- and upper-level engineers working in businesses operating in the private sector. The developed scale is a 5-point Likert-type measurement tool consisting of 4 sub-dimensions and a total of 36 items. Regarding the structure of the scale, the sub-dimensions of Technical and Social Issues (α = 0.858), Personal Life Issues (α = 0.882), Perception of Managerial Behavior (α = 0.807), and Interaction (α = 0.705) were found to be reliable. The content validity of the scale was ensured through expert opinions, with careful attention given to covering all sub-dimensions of the concept. Construct validity was evaluated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to determine whether the scale accurately measures the theoretical construct. Based on the study results, suggestions were provided for the leaders working with and through knowledge worker followers.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Followership, Leadership on Demand, Leadership, Knowledge Workers, Scale Development

Anında, Fakat Ne Zaman? Takipçi Merkezli Liderlik Yaklaşımları Bağlamında Anında Liderliğin İncelenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırmanın temel amacı, takipçilerin, özellikle de bilgi çalışanlarının, hangi durum ve koşullarda ve ne zaman lidere ihtiyaç duyduklarını belirleyebilmektir. Bu amacı gerçekleştirebilmek için “Anında Liderlik Ölçeği” geliştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın evrenini özel sektörde faaliyet gösteren işletmelerde çalışan orta ve üst düzey mühendisler oluşturmaktadır. Geliştirilen ölçek 5’li Likert tipi bir ölçüm aracı olup, 4 alt boyut ve toplam 36 maddeden oluşmaktadır. Ölçeğin yapısına ilişkin olarak, Teknik ve Sosyal Konular (α = 0.858), Özel Hayat Konuları (α = 0.882), Yönetici Davranışının Algısı (α = 0.807) ve Etkileşim (α = 0.705) alt boyutlarının güvenilir olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ölçeğin içerik geçerliliği, uzman görüşleri doğrultusunda sağlanmış ve kavramın tüm alt boyutlarının kapsanmasına özen gösterilmiştir. Yapı geçerliliği ise, ölçeğin teorik yapıyı doğru bir şekilde ölçüp ölçmediğini belirlemek amacıyla, Açımlayıcı Faktör Analizi (EFA) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarından hareketle bilgi çalışanı takipçilerle çalışan liderlere yönelik öneriler geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Takipçilik, Anında Liderlik, Liderlik, Bilgi Çalışanları, Ölçek Geliştirme

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Beşerî Bilimler Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği Kurulu tarafından 18.05.2021 tarih ve 69493 sayılı Etik Kurul Onay Belgesi ile bilimsel araştırma ve yayın etiği kurallarına uygun olarak hazırlanmıştır.

Kaynakça

• Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. C., & Esteves, F. (2023). Followership. In D. Schedlitzki, M. Larsson, B. Carroll, M. C. Bligh, & O. Epitropaki (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (2nd ed., pp. 83–95). Sage.
• Almeida, T., Ramalho, N. C., & Esteves, F. (2021). Can you be a follower even when you do not follow the leader? Yes, you can. Leadership, 17(3), 336–364.
• Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2011). Introduction. In M. Alvesson & A. Spicer (Eds.), Metaphors we lead by: Understanding leadership in the real world (pp. 1–7). Routledge.
• Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2011). Management is the solution; now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(4), 349–361.
• Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2002). Developing potential across a full range of leadership. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Balcı, A. (2001). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma: Yöntem, teknik ve ilkeler. Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50–60.
• Blanchard, K., Zigarmi, D., & Zigarmi, P. (1996). Liderlik ve bir dakika yöneticisi (Trans. M. Özcan). Acar Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık.
• Bligh, M. C. (2011). Followership and follower-centered approaches. In D. Collinson, K. Grint, A. Bryman, M. Uhl-Bien, & B. Jackson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 425–436). Sage.
• Bligh, M. C., Kohles, J. C., & Meindl, J. R. (2004). Charting the language of leadership: A methodological investigation of President Bush and the crisis of 9/11. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 562–574.
• Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. (2015). All-inclusive and all good: The hegemonic ambiguity of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(4), 480–492.
• Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. (2014). Leadership on demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of managerial leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(3), 344–357.
• Bresnen, M. J. (1995). All things to all people? Perceptions, attributions, and constructions of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(4), 495–513.
• Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: The pursuit of happiness. Atlantic Monthly Press.
• Carsten, M. K., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B. J., Patera, J. L., & McGregor, R. (2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualitative study. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 543–562.
• Chaleff, I. (2009). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations, 58(11), 1419–1442.
• Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179–189.
• Collinson, D. (2012). Prozac leadership and the limits of positive thinking. Leadership, 8(2), 87–107.
• Courpasson, D., & Dany, F. (2003). Indifference or obedience? Business firms as democratic hybrids. Journal of Organizational Studies, 24(8), 1231–1260.
• Crevani, L., Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2010). Leadership, not leaders: On the study of leadership as practices and interactions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26(1), 77–86.
• DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.
• DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Sage.
• Fairhurst, G. T., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Organizational discourse analysis (ODA): Examining leadership as a relational process. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(6), 1043–1062.
• Follett, M. P. (1949). Urwick, L. (Ed.). Freedom and co-ordination: Lectures in business organisation. Management Publication Trust.
• Fischer, T., Hambrick, D. C., Sajons, G. B., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2023). Leadership science beyond questionnaires. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), 101752.
• Gabriel, Y. (1997). Meeting God: When organizational members come face to face with the supreme leader. Human Relations, 50(4), 315–342.
• Gesang, E., & Süß, S. (2021). A shift in perspective: Examining the impact of perceived follower behavior on leaders. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 37(2), 101–156.
• Grint, K., Jones, O. S., & Holt, C. (2017). What is leadership: Person, result, position, purpose or process, or all or none of these? In J. Storey, J. L. Hartley, D. Denis, P. Hart, & D. Ulrich (Eds.), The Routledge companion to leadership (pp. 3–20). Routledge.
• Hollander, E. P. (1993). Legitimacy, power, and influence: A perspective on relational features of leadership. In M. M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 29–48). Academic Press.
• Hollander, E. P. (2009). Inclusive leadership: The essential leader-follower relationship. Routledge.
• Hollander, E. P., & Webb, W. B. (1955). Leadership, followership, and friendship: An analysis of peer nominations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 50, 163–167.
• Jackson, B., & Parry, K. (2011). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying leadership. Sage.
• Kellerman, B. (2008). How followers are creating change and changing leaders. Harvard Business Review Press. Kelley, R. (1988). In praise of followers. Harvard Business Review, 66(1), 142–148.
• Larsson, M., & Nielsen, M. F. (2017). The risky path to a followership identity: From abstract concept to situated reality. International Journal of Business Communication, 58(1), 3–30.
• Manz, C. (1986). Self-leadership: Toward an expanded view of self-influence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 585–600.
• Manz, C., & Pearce, C. L. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership: The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work. Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130–140.
• Meindl, J. R. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(3), 329–341.
• Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750.
• Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership, and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919–934.
• Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194.
• Pfeffer, J. (1977). Ambiguity of leadership. Academy of Management Review, 2(1), 104–112.
• Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Pearson.
• Riggio, R. E. (2014). Followership research: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(4), 15–20.
• Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge as work: Conflicts in the management of knowledge workers. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(1), 5–16.
• Seçer, İ. (2015). SPSS ve LISREL ile pratik veri analizi: Analiz ve raporlaştirma (2nd ed.). Anı Yayıncılık.
• Shamir, B. (1999). Taming charisma for better understanding and greater usefulness: A response to Beyer. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 555–562.
• Stoner, J. A. F., & Wankel, C. (1986). Management (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall International.
• Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113(2), 73–84.
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654–676.
• Uhl-Bien, M., & Pillai, R. (2007). The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. Information Age Publishing.
• Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104.
• Walumbwa, F. O., Christensen, A. L., & Hailey, F. (2011). Authentic leadership and the knowledge economy: Sustaining motivation and trust among knowledge workers. Organizational Dynamics, 40(2), 110–118.