Advertisement

Exploring Distributed Leadership: A Leader–Follower Collaborative Lens

  • Marc Hurwitz
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Leadership and Followership book series (PASTLEFO)

Abstract

Animals demonstrate a rich repertoire of social interactions including leadership and followership. In this chapter, I apply a leader–follower lens to a selection of fish and wolf studies to investigate three questions: (1) are centralized, distributed, or leaderless groups most common; (2) when do each occur; and (3) how is followership manifested? The analysis suggests that leadership and followership are mutual influence processes; individuals frequently switch between the two but they preferentially enact one or the other depending on the task and circumstance. Distributed leadership (DL) was more commonly observed than either centralized or leaderless groups in the species studied, perhaps because it confers a fitness advantage. Using a leadership–followership perspective revealed that: followership training was more effective than leadership training; training followers to lead resulted in a reduction in following; the outcome of failed leadership attempts on future behavior depended on individual phenotype; first followers had an outsized influence on decision-making; and leading desensitized fish to the actions of their followers. Finally, wolf studies failed to support dominance hierarchy theory, namely the theory that dominance relationships exist to demarcate leadership relationships.

Keywords

Leadership Followership Distributed leadership Shared leadership Dominance hierarchy theory 

References

  1. Agrillo, C., Piffer, L., Bisazza, A., & Butterworth, B. (2012). Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PloS One, 7(2), e31923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, I., Myatt, J. P., & Wilson, A. M. (2013). Group hunting within Carnivora: Physiological, cognitive and environmental influences on strategy and cooperation. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 67(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, G. (2014). Social predation: How group living benefits predators and prey. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  5. Bourjade, M., Thierry, B., Hausberger, M., & Petit, O. (2015). Is leadership a reliable concept in animals? An empirical study in the horse. PloS One, 10(5), e0126344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, C. (2015). Fish intelligence, sentience, and ethics. Animal Cognition, 18, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  8. Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investigation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 90(5), 1217–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.Google Scholar
  10. Chaleff, I. (2008). Creating new ways of followership. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff, & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great leaders in organizations (pp. 67–87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Colbry, S., Hurwitz, M., & Adair, R. (2014). Collaboration theory. Journal of Leadership Studies, 13(4), 63–75.Google Scholar
  12. Collignon, B., & Detrain, C. (2010). Distributed leadership and adaptive decision-making in the ant Tetramorium caespitum. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1685), 1267–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins, J. (2005). Level 5 leadership: The triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 79(1), 66–76.Google Scholar
  14. Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structuralist analysis of follower identities. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership-team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeRue, D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyer, J. R. G., Croft, D. P., Morrell, L. J., & Krause, J. (2008). Shoal composition determines foraging success in the guppy. Behavioral Ecology, 20(1), 165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Escobedo, R., Muro, C., Spector, L., & Coppinger, R. P. (2014). Group size, individual role differentiation and effectiveness of cooperation in a homogeneous group of hunters. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 11(95), 20140204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Essler, J. L., Cafazzo, S., Marshall-Pescini, S., Virányi, Z., Kotrschal, K., & Range, F. (2016). Play behavior in wolves: Using the “50:50” rule to test for egalitarian play styles. PloS One, 11(5), e0154150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff, I. R., Sundaresan, S. R., Cordingley, J., Larkin, H. M., Sellier, M., & Rubenstein, D. I. (2007). Social relationships and reproductive state influence leadership roles in movements of plains zebra, Equus burchellii. Animal Behaviour, 73(5), 825–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Follett, M. P. (1949). The essentials of leadership. London: Management Publications Trust.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, M. W. (1970). A comparative study of development of facial expressions in canids—Wolf, coyote and foxes. Behaviour, 36, 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 877–917). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harcourt, J. L., Ang, T. Z., Sweetman, G., Johnstone, R. A., & Manica, A. (2009). Social feedback and the emergence of leaders and followers. Current Biology, 19, 248–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hollander, E. P., & Julian, J. W. (1969). Contemporary trends in the analysis of leadership processes. Psychological Bulletin, 71(5), 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hoption, C., Christie, A., & Barling, J. (2015). Submitting to the follower label. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(4), 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Humphrey, S. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., Meyer, C. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2011). Personality configurations in self-managed teams: A natural experiment on the effects of maximizing and minimizing variance in traits. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1701–1732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2009). The romance of the follower: Part 1. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(2), 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurwitz, M., & Hurwitz, S. (2015). Leadership is half the story: A fresh look at followership, leadership, & collaboration. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kaczensky, P., Hayes, R. D., & Promberger, C. (2005). Effect of raven Corvus corax scavenging on the kill rates of wolf Canis lupus packs. Wildlife Biology, 11, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  35. Krueger, K., Flauger, B., Farmer, K., & Hemelrijk, C. (2014). Movement initiation in groups of feral horses. Behavioural Processes, 103, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kummer, H. (1968). Social organization of Hamadryas baboons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Landeau, L., & Terborgh, J. (1986). Oddity and the “confusion effect” in predation. Animal Behavior, 34, 1372–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Leca, J. B., Gunst, N., Thierry, B., & Petit, O. (2003). Distributed leadership in semifree-ranging white-faced capuchin monkeys. Animal Behaviour, 66, 1045–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lee, H. C., & Teichroeb, G. A. (2016). Partially shared consensus decision making and distributed leadership in vervet monkeys: Older females lead the group to forage. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 161(4), 580–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacNulty, D. R., Tallian, A., Stahler, D. R., & Smith, D. W. (2014). Influence of group size on the success of wolves hunting bison. PloS One, 9(11), e112884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Malakyan, P. G. (2015). Depersonalizing leadership and followership: The process of leadership and followership. World Journal of Social Science Research, 2(2), 227–250.Google Scholar
  42. Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mech, L. D. (2000). Leadership in wolf, Canis lupus, packs. Canadian Field-Naturalist, 114(2), 259–263.Google Scholar
  45. Mech, L. D. (2007). Possible use of foresight, understanding, and planning by wolves hunting muskoxen. Arctic, 60, 145–149.Google Scholar
  46. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(1), 78–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muro, C., Escobedo, R., Spector, L., & Coppinger, R. P. (2011). Wolf-pack (Canis lupus) hunting strategies emerge from simple rules in computational simulations. Behavioural Processes, 88(3), 192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nakayama, S., Harcourt, J. L., Johnstone, R. A., & Manica, A. (2012). Initiative, personality and leadership in pairs of foraging fish. PloS One, 7(5), e36606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nakayama, S., Stumpe, M. C., Manica, A., & Johnstone, R. A. (2013). Experience overrides personality differences in the tendency to follow but not in the tendency to lead. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 280, 20131724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. O’Toole, J., Galbraith, J., & Lawler III, E. E. (2003). The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership: When two (or more) heads are better than one. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 250–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oc, B., & Bashshur, M. R. (2013). Followership, leadership, and social influence. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 919–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Packard, J. M. (2003). Wolf behavior: Reproductive, social, and intelligent. In D. L. Mech & L. Boitani (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation (pp. 35–65). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Peterson, R. O., & Ciucci, P. (2003). The wolf as a carnivore. In D. L. Mech & L. Boitani (Eds.), Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation (pp. 104–157). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Peterson, R. O., Jacobs, A. K., Drummer, T. D., Mech, L. D., & Smith, D. W. (2002). Leadership behavior in relation to dominance and reproductive status in gray wolves, Canis lupus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80(8), 1405–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ramos, A., Petit, O., Longour, P., Pasquaretta, C., & Sueur, C. (2015). Collective decision making during group movements in European bison, Bison bonasus. Animal Behaviour, 190, 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Range, F., Ritter, C., & Virányi, Z. (2015). Testing the myth: Tolerant dogs and aggressive wolves. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282, 20150220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2011). Development of gaze following abilities in wolves (Canis lupus). PloS One, 6(2), e16888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Range, F., & Virányi, Z. (2014). Wolves are better imitators of conspecifics than dogs. PloS One, 9(1), e86559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shamir, B. (2007). From passive recipients to active co-producers: The roles of followers in the leadership process. In B. Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to J. R. Meindl. Stamford, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25(1), 35–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stueckle, S., & Zinner, D. (2008). To follow or not to follow: Decision making and leadership during the morning departure in chacma baboons. Animal Behaviour, 75(6), 1995–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sumpter, D. J. T., Krause, J., James, R., Couzin, I. D., & Ward, A. J. W. (2008). Consensus decision making by fish. Current Biology, 18, 1773–1777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thompson, J. D. (2003). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  66. Thorpe, R., Gold, J., & Lawler, J. (2011). Locating distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. C. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vanderslice, V. J. (1988). Separating leadership from leaders: An assessment of the effect of leader and follower roles in organizations. Human Relations, 41(9), 677–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Visscher, P. K. (2007). Group decision making in nest-site selection among social insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 52, 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weber, J. M., & Moore, C. (2014). Squires key followers and the social facilitation of charismatic leadership. Organizational Psychology Review, 4(3), 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory and research. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  77. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marc Hurwitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Conrad Business, Entrepreneurship, & Technology CentreUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations