Organisational research and practice focus on leadership. Comparatively little is known about followership. What is known is usually from the leader’s perspective emphasising behaviours that leaders believe followers should enact. On the occasions that followership is included in leadership development it is usually intended to improve leaders’ leadership of others and not to develop participants’ followership skills or behaviours. If leaders and followers are to work together effectively in workplaces we need to better understand followership as intrinsically valuable to the leadership process and relationship. A clearer understanding of followership behaviours from the perspectives of both followers and leaders will add to our understanding; without this we see only part of the leadership picture. In this research I included a followership perspective, collecting data from both followers and leaders, and employed a mixed methods approach to consider the overarching research question What do followership behaviours and expectations of followership behaviours contribute to the workplace?

I conducted 63 semi-structured interviews with followers and leaders working in nine agencies within the South Australian public sector. I explored leaders’ and followers’ expectations of followers, their identification of effective follower behaviours, and facilitators and inhibitors of those behaviours to answer the questions What expectations do leaders and followers have of followers in the workplace? What effective followership behaviours are identified by leaders and followers? and How is effective followership facilitated or inhibited? My interview data showed that the core followership behaviours of deferral to and support for the leader are distinct from other behaviours which employees display in the workplace. The interviews also identified how core followership behaviours may be facilitated or inhibited.

I also considered whether agreement between leaders and followers is important. To examine the question Is congruence in expectations of followership behaviours associated with follower performance and wellbeing and the quality of their relationship with their leader?, I collected data from 117 manager/staff member dyads employed in 13 South Australian public sector agencies. The survey included a provisional measure of core followership behaviour expectations developed based on the interview study. Analysis of the dyadic survey data using polynomial regression showed no relationship between congruence in leader and follower core followership behaviour expectations and the outcomes of high/high leader member exchange (LMX) agreement, or follower performance, role clarity or wellbeing.

This research makes a theoretical contribution by extending our understanding of followership. I do this by identifying core followership behaviours: deferral to and support of the leader. Core followership behaviours are distinct from other employee behaviours (such as organisation citizenship behaviours, voice, task completion, and proactivity). My findings in relation to facilitators and inhibitors of effective followership illuminate the nuanced and interrelated nature of followership and leadership. This research highlights follower agency, attitudes, and behaviours in facilitating or inhibiting effective followership and extends our understanding of the leadership process.

A better understanding of followership and followership behaviours from the perspectives of both followers and leaders also clarifies the practical contribution that followership makes in organisations with implications for human resources practices. These include professional development of both followers and leaders to support the practise of effective follower behaviours as well as recruitment and selection, and reward and recognition of employees who follow well.