Measuring Followership: An Empirical Investigation of the Kelley Followership Questionnaire-Revised

• In Event: Evening Extravaganza: Taste of Brussels Reception, Author Meet & Greet, Lifetime Achievement Awardee and Keynote Meet & Greet, & Hosted Poster Session
  In Poster: Leadership Education Display Posters

Short Description

This study explored the validity of Kelley’s Followership Questionnaire (KFQ) through a revised version (KFQ-R). Validation of Kelley’s two-dimensional model was not supported. KFQ-R three factors model accounted only for 47.42% of variance (N=329). Developing more robust followership instruments are necessary for better training followers to become engines of change.

Detailed Abstract

Followers, whose significance has been underestimated for years in leadership research literature, are active and valuable players in organizations. Followership emerged as a new area of study 33 years ago; this appearance provides an opportunity for thought and research regarding the sizable influence followers are capable of having on a leader and the organization (Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). A follower is a person who makes a decision whether or not to collaborate with a leader in order to achieve an organizational purpose. Followers are responsible for the majority of organizational outcomes; however, their significant role in this process is often neglected (Kelley, 1992). Turbulent times call for better understanding of followers, their types and characteristics in order to empower organizations to manage change.

Robert Kelley (1992) is a pioneer of followership research (Chaleff, 2009; Crossman, B., & Crossman, J., 2011; Kellerman, 2007; Riggio et al., 2008), who created the first survey to differentiate between five categories of followers based on two dimensions: independent, critical thinking and engagement. The purpose of the KFQ was to help followers categorize themselves in order to develop behaviors and attitudes towards becoming exemplary followers (high score on both dimensions). Under the independent, critical thinking dimension, Kelley described followers as “thinking for themselves, giving constructive criticism, owning your own person, and being innovative and creative” (Kelley, 1992, p. 93). The engagement dimension addressed followers as “taking initiative, assuming ownership, participating actively, being a self-started, and going beyond the job” (Kelley, 1992, p. 94). These definitions were further explored. As a result, it was identified that Kelley’s survey measures critical thinking disposition vs. independent, critical thinking and work engagement vs. engagement.

Although the Kelley’s model has been utilized in research, the validity and reliability of the Kelley Followership Questionnaire (KFQ) is still in question, specifically, the KFQ structure, length of each question, and presence of compound questions undermine its effectiveness. Additionally, investigations by Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, & Bullock (2009), Colangelo (2000), Gatti, Tartari, Cortese, and Ghislieri (2014), Ghislieri, Gatti, and Cortese (2015), and Seeley (2007) did not support the validity of Kelley’s two dimensional model. In this study the KFQ was revised accordingly and was analyzed to test its validity.

The Kelley-Followership Questionnaire-Revised (KFQ-R) was tested among employees from four banking institutions and a nonprofit utility company in Arkansas (N=329). The revised version (KFQ-R) resulted in 25 questions with the response choices being Rarely = 1; Occasionally = 4; Almost Always = 7. Four instruments were used in the study: the Kelley's Followership Questionnaire – Revised (KFQ-R); the Marlowe – Crowne, Social Desirability Scale – Short Form (M-C SDS-SF); the University of Florida Engagement, Cognitive Maturity, and Innovativeness assignment (UF-EMI) as a measure of critical thinking disposition; and the Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) as a measure of work engagement.

Primary analysis indicated that Kelley Followership Questionnaire –Revised (KFQ-R) does not elicit a biased socially desirable response set. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Parallel Analysis both revealed a three factor model which did not support Kelley’s two-dimensional model. Three significant interpretable factors emerged from the factor analysis procedure: Exemplary Followership; Leader-Centered Followership; and Disengaged Followership. Convergent Validity was tested through correlations between the theorized scales of the KFQ-R and the scales of the critical thinking disposition (UF-EMI) and the work engagement (UWES). Significant correlations between the scales provided evidence of convergent validity between the critical thinking disposition and work engagement dimensions of the KFQ-R.

It is important to note that KFQ-R three factors model accounted only for 47.42% of variance in the sample (Factor 1 = 31.02 %; Factor 2 = 8.78 %; Factor 3 = 7.62%). Given that less than half of the variance was explained by the three factors indicates that the KFQ-R is not sufficient to explain the complex nature of follower types and their respective behaviors. This is especially noteworthy given the fact that the current sample was drawn from more traditional, hierarchical organizations where one would expect more simplistic followership roles among the employees. This finding echoes the importance of approaching leadership and followership concepts from the multidimensional prospective and considering the fluid, flexible relationship between followership and leadership. Developing and validating more robust followership instruments are necessary for better understanding followers, their categories and characteristics. This in turn will promote followers development and training, which will empower them to manage change in unsettled environments.

Participant

• Kateryna V. Ligon, Central Baptist College