More Than Organizational Incantations: The Role of Ritual in Developing Followers

Running Head: MORE THAN ORGANIZATIONAL INCANTATIONS 1

More Than Organizational Incantations: The Role of Ritual in Developing Followers


Short Description

A review of ritual and follower theories suggests an intersection valuable for follower

development. Ritual embodies organizational values resulting in stronger social identity.

Effective followers have robust social relationships, specific traits, and display acceptable

behavior. Ritual’s ability to strengthen social identity, practice valued traits, and define

normative parameters suggests ritual is a tool for follower development. Future research includes

development of a ritual measurement, analyzing similar and dissimilar rituals across

organizations, and identifying ritual translation methods.

Brief Abstract

A brief review of ritual and follower theories shows a potentially moderating variable on

follower development. Ritual is designed to take that which is abstract, symbolic, or intangible

and create concrete, involved, and substantial representations, resulting in stronger social

identity. Ritual uses profane participants, objects, places, and times to communicate through

embodiment the cognitive meanings that the ritual represents. The variety of ritual in both

typology (passage, degradation, enhancement, renewal, conflict reduction, and integration) and

dimensions (narrative, corporeal, social, and place/history) suggests a variegated tool applicable

to diverse contexts. Followers are individuals who have agreed to a subordinate position in

relationship to a leader(s) in order to accomplish a common purpose. This gravity around a

common purpose makes social identity an antecedent to followership. Effective followers have

robust social relationships, specific traits, and display acceptable behavior. Ritual’s ability to

identify and strengthen social relationships and boundaries through the strengthening of social

identity suggests that ritual may be an important factor in follower development. Also, ritual’s


capacity for communicating in embodied form the traits, skills, and behaviors valued by the

organization suggests ritual as a tool for learning the valued traits of the organization. Finally,

ritual’s power to communicate in an observable manner the intangible meaning and purposes of

the organization suggests an instrument for learning pragmatic, problem-solving skills. Thus,

ritual becomes a compelling means of developing followers. Recommended future research

included the development of a ritual measurement instrument. Such an instrument would be able

to discern between ritual and ritual-like activity. In addition, research needs to analyze both

similar and dissimilar rituals across organizational contexts. Similar rituals can contribute to the

knowledge of what communicates specific organizational values in the most effective manner.

Dissimilar rituals can add to understanding which rituals are contextually bound. Finally,

research needs to determine a means of translating historical rituals into contemporary contexts

so that leaders can leverage existing rituals to changing situations.


More Than Organizational Incantations: The Role of Ritual in Developing Followers

Speak of ritual and most think of incantations droning from an elderly male in some

ancient language to a group of people who participate only for transactional motivations. This is

an unfortunate caricature. Not simply because this is ritual at its most perverse but also because

our lives are filled with ritual. There is a reason why team meetings follow the agenda that they

follow, why certain people sit where they sit, why certain times of the day are designated as

times to conduct business, and why certain information must be presented in specific formats.

While ritual does not answer all these elements in every context, it provides significant insight

into the underpinnings of the organizational culture. The rituals that surround these daily

organizational elements are attempting to communicate deeper purposes and values, whether

explicitly recognized or not.

But if ritual is such a critical feature of the organizational environment, then to what

degree does ritual contribute to follower development? While much of leadership studies have

focused, appropriately so, upon proper leadership, still, one cannot dismiss that an important

element of leadership studies is the study of followership. Without followers, there is no

leadership. Thus, the question of how to develop followers is a critical question of leadership

studies. However, the question runs even deeper: how does a leader develop followers that are

committed to the organization and its unique purposes and values? Ritual may provide an answer

to these questions and as such a study of the intersection of ritual and follower theories is

appropriate.

Ritual Theory

Ritual is designed to take that which is abstract, symbolic, or intangible and create

concrete, involved, and substantial representations. It is uniquely able to distinguish between


thoughts and actions while integrating them together to embody cognitions (Bell, 1992). It is a

window that sheds light by communicating an expression of beliefs; not only to the participant

but also to the participant’s community and those who observe that community (Bell, 1992). The

embodied expressions of those beliefs are ritualizations, a distinction that is necessary since

rarely do ritualizations purely capture rituals. This makes sense of the flexibility of ritualizations

in different communities attempting to practice the same ritual meaning (Driver, 1991). This also

explains the qualitative distinctions made between sacred and profane elements of rituals (Bell,

1992). In order to embody the abstract beliefs and values, profane participants, objects, time, and

space must be used; but, in using them, they become sacred in their ability to communicate the

purposes and values.

As might be expected from these definitions, sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish

between ritual and ritual-like activities. Smith and Stewart (2011) suggested a measurement of

nine inter-dependent organizational ritual functions: (a) rituals provide meaning, (b) rituals

manage anxiety, (c) rituals exemplify and reinforce the social order, (d) rituals communicate

important values, (e) rituals enhance group solidarity; (f) rituals include and exclude, (g) rituals

signal commitment, (h) rituals manage work structure, and (i) rituals prescribe and reinforce

significant events (p. 117). While ritual-like behavior may include one or more of these

attributes, the more these functions present in an activity the more it approaches ritual activity. In

addition, Smith and Stewart recommended that a time factor be considered such that the less

often that an event happens, the more likely it is to be ritual. Thus, for instance, there is a

significant ritual difference between someone who provides the office with donuts every day, a

birthday gift, and a sweet sixteen celebration. The more often ritual-like behavior occurs the


more likely it is habitual; the less often ritual-like behavior happens the more likely it is acting as

ritual.

Of course, any time that observation is an important component, as it is in ritual,

perception and interpretation of the ritual must be considered. Anderson and Foley (1998)

provided three possible outcomes to interpretation of ritual. The public meaning of a ritual is

defined by the perception of the ritual that is commonly held by the majority of participants and

observers. The official meaning is the meaning that had originally been bestowed on the ritual or

that which is held by the experts or official documents of the ritual. Finally, there is a personal

meaning that is held by the individual participant but is not shared by a significant number of

other participants or observers. Clearly, this can result in three distinct meanings that are

understood by the same ritual activity.

Types and Dimensions of Ritual

Islam and Zyphur (2009) provided a helpful summary of types of organizational rituals

(as opposed to religious or community rituals). Rites of passage transport an individual from an

existing role through a transitional phase and into a new role. Rites of degradation remove a

stratum of social status from an individual leaving them with a lower status than before the rite.

Rites of enhancement are the mirror activity to rites of degradation; they add a stratum of social

status giving the individual a higher status than before the rite. Renewal rites are designed to

enhance and enforce values of the organization. Rites of conflict reduction are designed to show

that the cultivation of harmony is valued and being pursued. Rites of integration bring together

two groups that would not normally associate.

Each of these rites can exist in four different dimensions: (a) narrative, (b) corporeal, (c)

social, and (d) place and history (Bell, 1992). Ritual can take the form of language. When


written, the narrative ritual fixes the communication of the ritual in a static format. However,

depending on the culture and the formality of the spoken words, the same can occur in spoken

narrative ritual. This is not to suggest that all narrative is ritual but rather that ritual can use

narrative to cultivate identification with the ritual’s values and beliefs such that the participants

and observers become part of the ritual community (Anderson & Foley, 1998).

One of the primary modes of communication for ritual is embodiment often through the

body of the participant (Bell, 1992). In this sense, ritual has a corporeal dimension. Since the

imagination, experience, and reasoning of the participants are impressed upon the body, this

corporeal dimension can take on special significance (Bell, 1992).

However, as has already been noted, ritual is predominantly social in character, making

up another dimension to be considered in its study. Communities use rituals as social identifiers

of both allegiance and inclusion (Bell, 1992). While sub-groups within the community can have

variety depending on context, the overall ritual acts as a social identifier (Bell, 1992). Thus, the

social dimension of ritual assists in differentiating sub-communities from each other while –

often simultaneously – uniting central social meanings (Bell, 1992).

The variety of social groupings holding to similar rituals necessarily indicates the

dimension of place in ritual. Western philosophy has been comfortable with meaning

transcending space and time and thus often has little to contribute to place (Grimes, 1993).

However, purpose and perspective both have significant impact upon what is understood as

“here” or “there” (Grimes, 1993). While in more naturalistic cultures place is considered

something to be filled, some philosophical research has suggested that place should be thought of

as “part of the active product of intellectual creation” (Smith, 1987, p. 26). Smith noted that Kant

suggested that place can be defined by the totality of our perceptions. As such, anything special


within that perception becomes potentially valuable to ritual practice. In addition, the historical

feature of ritual also must take into account the perspective of the one recounting the history with

an inclusion of the present (Grimes, 1993). As such, ritual place offers both the past and the

present coming together so that both “occupy the stage at the same time” (Grimes, 1993, p. 85)

When these elements of place are combined together, the ability of place to represent

simultaneously both nature and meaning become evident. It is in this way that ritual place best

represents how the profane is able to represent the sacred (Smith, 1987).

Summary

Ritual theory shows that rituals communicate, perform, and pattern (Martin, 1996). As

these rituals are duplicated over time, a historical narrative develops that brings into the present

the truths of the past. This is not to suggest pure rigidity to the past as present contexts can be

grafted into the ritual. Thus, rituals have the unique advantage of bringing the truth and power of

the past into the present while allowing the present to influence the past (Bell, 1992; Martin,

1996). This communication of established purposes and values cultivates a constancy around the

ritual by adding structure and meaning to the world and causing meaningful actions to occur

(Driver, 1991). The intrinsic constancy of rituals brings people together since ritual is

“interactive and social by nature” (Driver, 1991, p. 154). In this way, profane people, objects,

places, and times are transformed into that which holds meaning and reality (Brown, 2003).

Through the use of rites and ritualizations, the purpose of ritual is to realize that which is

abstract, symbolic, or intangible as concrete, involved, and substantial. Important to this

realization are the words that are spoken, written, or read, what is done, who it is done by, with

what it is done, and where it is done (Guthrie, 1999). The goal of ritual is to be a knowledge-

learning experience not only for the individual but, through observation, for ritual knowledge to


be transmitted to others (Jennings, 1982). In this manner, ritual becomes a conscious

embodiment of disembodied cognition (Dempsey, 2009). What is perhaps most unique about

ritual is its social context. Vallas (2007) has shown that the pursuit of values and meaning on an

individualistic level is weaker than that same pursuit in a social context. The handling of abstract

cognition through embodied action within a social context creates a social identity transforming

the ritual into a social action (Turner, 1969).

Followership

Leadership studies have extensively researched and defined traits, behaviors, and

relational characteristics of leaders while virtually ignoring one of the most influential

components of leadership – followership (Gini, 1998). Within a Western framework, the

problem is exacerbated since followers are seen as inferior to leaders (Seteroff, 2003). However,

no discussion of leadership is complete without a discussion of followership. This fact is

heightened by the development of more highly relational theories dependent upon follower

reaction and achievement, such as servant and transformational leadership (Kellerman, 2008).

Definitions and Typology of Follwers

Since no single definition of leader or leadership exists, it is not surprising that it can be

difficult to nail down a definition of follower and followership. Some have suggested that it is

related to rank and behavior (Kellerman, 2008). Others that the leader/follower relationship

gravitates around a common purpose (Chaleff, 2003). Thus, a follower could be defined as an

individual who has agreed to a subordinate position in relationship to a leader(s) in order to

accomplish a common purpose. This naturally leads to a definition of followership which

“implies a relationship (rank), between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of

the former to the latter” (Kellerman, 2008, p. xx).


Followership typologies have normally followed a quadrant model. Zaleznik (1965)

plotted followers on axes of dominance/submission and active/passive, resulting in four types of

followers: (a) impulsive, (b) compulsive, (c) masochistic, and (d) withdrawn. Impulsive

subordinates are rebellious challengers of authority. Compulsive subordinates seek to control

those in authority. Masochistic subordinates desire to be controlled by authority. Withdrawn

subordinates are apathetic toward authority. While Zaleznik marked one of the first attempts to

better understand the complexities of followership, the negative perspective toward followership

limited the long-term usefulness of this typology.

Kelley’s (1992) quadrant model with independent-critical/dependent-uncritical, and

active/inactive engagement axes produced five typologies: (a) alienated, (b) exemplary, (c)

conformist, (d) passive, and (e) pragmatist. Alienated followers are high in independent and

critical thinking, although they are not actively engaged within their organization. Exemplary

followers are high in independent and critical thinking and high in active engagement.

Conformist followers are high in active engagement but tend to be dependent and uncritical in

their thinking. An inactive level of engagement combined with dependent-uncritical thinking

describes the passive followers. Finally, pragmatist followers tend to be a combination of these

characteristics changing their followership based on circumstances.

Although Chaleff (2003), like other theorists, used a two-axis model that referenced four

typologies, Chaleff’s typology was a unique development in that it focused upon followership

from the follower perspective. The axes that Chaleff plotted on were high/low support and

high/low challenge resulting in implementers, partners, individualists, and resourcers.

Implementers are high in supporting the leader and low in challenging the leader resulting in the

most common type of follower who gets done what is expected from the leader. Partners are high


in support and high in challenge resulting in followers that tend to come alongside the leader in

decision-making and accomplishment. Individualists are high in challenge and low in support

resulting in followers that are typically marginalized. Resourcers are low in challenge and low in

support resulting in followers that accomplish minimum expectations.

A diversion from this quadrant model was Kellerman’s (2008) continuum-based levels of

follower engagement ranging from no involvement to deep involvement. Along this continuum

were five possible types of follower: (a) isolate, (b) bystander, (c) participant, (d) activist, and (e)

diehard. Isolates characterize detachment by “knowing nothing and doing nothing” (Kellerman,

2008, p. 86), bystanders “observe but do not participate” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 92), participants

are engaged with and on behalf of the leader, activists have a strong emotive connection to the

leader that causes high investment in the leader’s expectations, and diehards are consumed by

their dedication to such a degree that it defines who they are.

Becoming a Follower

While the development of followership through various typologies might be helpful,

perhaps a deeper question is how one becomes a follower. Seteroff (2003) suggested that rather

than thinking in terms of follower and leader that there are many organizational relationships that

represent inverted characteristics (though not in opposition to each other). Thus, the focus was

upon the context in which an individual must lead or follow. Similarly, Kelley (1992) offered

seven pathways to followership: (a) lifeway, (b) dreamer, (c) apprentice, (d) disciple, (e) mentee,

(f) comrade, and (g) loyalist. Those who enter followership through lifeway paths believe

followership is the type of life that their personality and preferences best match. For these, a

follower is an expression of their self-awareness and their help and service to others through

following becomes an indication of who they are as a person (Kelley, 1992). Dreamers are those


who enter followership through the pathway of their dreams or aspirations. For some, this will

mean remaining in follower roles; for others, it will mean being a follower is only a necessary

part of accomplishing their dream. In either case, followership is pursued for the attainment of

the dream (Kelley, 1992). According to Kelley, apprentices are followers in order to become

leaders. They are “learning the ropes” in order to move along on the continuum of organizational

relationships to the role of leader. Kelley differentiated apprenticeship and discipleship by

defining discipleship as anyone willing to learn from those who are more learned in a group

context. This definition also differs from mentorship, which according to Kelley is similar to

discipleship (group-learning) but consists of a dyadic relationship of learning. Sometimes,

becoming a follower is independent of “getting ahead, personal growth, or intellectual

development. Instead, it may be about the intimacy and social support that develop when people

bond together” (Kelley, 1992, p. 66). This relationship Kelley termed comrade. Finally, Kelley

defined the loyalist as a follower who has taken the path of allegiance that may be either

personally or culturally generated.

Obviously, this all suggests a strong relational dimension to the follower role. Thus,

Hogg’s (2008) suggestion that social identity is an antecedent to followership shows merit. Hogg

theorized that the attribution by followers of proper leadership style to the leader was critical to

leadership. This comports well with Chaleff’s (2003) suggestion that both leader and follower

gravitate around a common purpose. Thus, a beneficial leader-follower relationship may spring

out of the social identity theory in which both the leader and follower recognize “attributes that

define the group one belongs to, one’s ingroup” (Hogg, 2008, p. 268).

Motivations and Ethics for Followership


It would seem clear at this point that followership is not the derogatory, dirty role that it

is often portrayed to be; thus the topic of motivation for followership can be discussed. Personal

motivations include “personal values, economic status, personal goals or focus, humility, lack of

confidence, fear, ignorance or lack of comprehension, lack of trust, lack of feeling of inclusion,

[and/or] lack of conviction” (Adair, 2008, p. 140). Additionally, Kellerman (2008) suggested that

leaders contribute to this motivation by providing safety, security, a sense of order, and a symbol

of group/community belonging, giving direction to the collective purpose. However, group

motivations should not be discounted either. These include the need for structure, collective

goals, and the group capacity to achieve goals that cannot be achieved individually (Kellerman,

2008).

If Gini (1998) was correct in stating that “the collective and collaborative relationship

between leaders and followers is what makes leadership an ethical practice” (p. 365), then clearly

followership has ethical dimensions as well. Simply being an effective follower does not suggest

a “good follower.” One need look no further than the German nation at the time of the Nazis to

understand that effective followership is not always good in itself (Kellerman, 2008).

Certainly, foundational to the understanding of being ethical is a high degree of

authenticity. This suggests that perhaps authentic leadership has provided insights into authentic

followership (Avolio & Reichard, 2008). “To do nothing . . . to support a leader who is bad . . .

to oppose a leader who is good . . . is to be a bad follower” (Kellerman, 2008, p. 230). The

antithesis of the bad follower is the good follower who does something, opposes bad leaders, and

supports good leaders (Kellerman, 2008). The ability of ritual to embody these ethical

expressions begs the question of the role of ritual in follower development.

Summary


This overview of followership literature suggests at least three different characteristics

present in effective followers. First, effective followers have strong social relationships. These

relationships are with leaders, others, and the organization. Effective followers create an

interdependent partnership through acknowledging their leaders with trust, loyalty, and

supportiveness, which paradoxically may include challenging the leader (Baker, 2007; Baker,

Mathis, & Stites-Doe, 2011; Dale, 1987; Dixon & Westbrook, 2003; Gilbert & Hyde, 1988;

Johnson, 2011; Latour & Rast, 2004; Robinson, 2012). Effective followers are also collaborative

team members exhibiting reliability, listening skills, tolerance, synergy, and servant posturing

(Antelo, Prilipko, & Sheridan-Pereira, 2010; Cavell, 2007; Miller, Butler, & Cosentino, 2004).

These social relationships are in the greater context of the organization. An effective follower’s

relationship to the organization includes commitment and loyalty to the purpose and values of

the organization (Bjugstad, Thach, Thompson, & Morris, 2006; Dale, 1987; Robinson, 2012).

Clearly, community breeds leadership and followership. As such, social identity and the

transmission of values and meaning are an important variable in understanding followership. The

ability of ritual to identify and strengthen social relationships and boundaries suggests that ritual

may be an important factor in developing the social relationships of followers.

Second, effective followers have specific personalities, skills, and behaviors. Many of the

identified characteristics of effective follower personalities include ethical-oriented

characteristics such as faithfulness, dependability, integrity, honesty, trustworthiness, and

humility (Alcorn, 1992; Barrette, 2010; Lundin & Lancaster, 1990). Behaviors, such as taking

moral action, also have an ethical dimension (Cavell, 2007; Dixon & Westbrook, 2003; Frye et

al., 2007). This moral dimension to follower characteristics is not surprising given the highly

social component of followership and leadership, which necessitates an understanding of the


right and wrong way to act within social contexts. Once more, there is a unique opportunity

through ritual to develop such ethical dimensions within followers given ritual’s ability to

communicate in embodied forms the purpose and values of an organization. As such, ritual

allows followers to act out the traits, skills, and behaviors that the values of the organization

denote as right or wrong.

Third, an effective follower will understand how to act in varying changing

circumstances. The implicit sensible response associated with pragmatic activity necessarily

requires an understanding of the organization’s perception of reality. This holds true for problem

solving as well (Alcorn, 1992). If followers have no acquaintance with what the organization

considers to be normative, they are unlikely to be able to act pragmatically or solve problems

acceptably. Additionally, circumstances are expected to continually change; thus, followers must

have some form of anchor to root them in the midst of that change. Without a firm grasp on the

purpose and values within the organization, followers will probably fail in situational

effectiveness. Yet again, ritual becomes a tool for follower development given its ability to

communicate in an observable manner the intangible purposes and values of an organization.

It is part of the role of the leader to cultivate in the follower this assimilation into the

values, meaning, and purposes of the organization. This assimilation can be enhanced through

ritual (Garrity, 1993). Ritual is an especially effective tool for follower development as it is

capable of redefining the social identity markers of geographical and socioeconomic boundaries

by placing the follower within the new boundaries identified through the ritual (Cox, Hallett, &

Winter, 1994). This new social identity development through ritual is likely to have a longer

impact upon followers than a disciplinarian approach (Gardner, 1999). Thus, as leaders

encourage followers to experience learning opportunities associated with the social identity of


the organization, the follower is not only able to learn immediate insights but is able, through

encouraged contemplation, to link the ritualizations with the broader values, purpose, and

meaning of the organization (Densten & Gray, 2001).

Ritual in Organizational Leadership

While organizations can present their objectives, values, purposes, and missions in

statements, without tying those statements to specific activity the statements remain abstract

concepts. Even if the statements suggest proper activity (“we will act in such and such a

manner”) and define social identity (“we are this while others are that”), this will prove

insufficient to actualize these statements in the organization. Any parent can have a conversation

with their child about the importance of showing consideration and courtesy to others. Still, the

conversation alone is insufficient. The parent must have the child say “please” and “thank you”

even if to begin with the child does not understand the underlying consideration and courtesy.

The hope is that through embodying these truths that eventually the child will learn consideration

and courtesy. Similarly, leaders must provide their organizations with more than just statements

and instead make use of activities that embody the purposes and values of the statements. This is

what ritual is required for.

This is not to suggest that leaders create new rituals. As Smith and Stewart (2011) noted

(and nearly every other analysis listed in this article), the creation of new ritual is a pathway that

is fraught with dangers (e.g. if the ritual is rejected, the purposes and values attached to the ritual

may also be rejected) and relies upon a very long term development (i.e. rituals tend to develop

as habitual activities that are shown to have both ritual-like attributes and accurately convey the

purposes and values they are associated with). Rather, the organizational leader should consider

the rituals that already exist within the organization and determine ways of translating that ritual


to communicate its purposes and values. Early analysis of the translation of historical rituals to

contemporary contexts has suggested that there are ways to do this (Huizing, 2013).

However, when speaking about the translation of purposes and values and the impact

they will have upon both the organization and those that interact with that organization, the

question of ethics must be raised. The annuls of organizational and historical leadership are filled

with people who professed the highest of purposes and values yet reveled in all manner of

unscrupulous and spurious activities. Ritual uniquely allows the testing of the values and

purposes in microcosm. We live in a broken world, so one should not expect that this will protect

against all harm done in the name of the highest purposes and values. However, ritual necessarily

includes the community of people and allows participants to see the outcomes of the purposes

and values that they are holding to. Perhaps, if nothing else, it will open the eyes of some to the

wrong that could be done. This is perhaps one of the most important reasons why ritual is crucial

to follower development. If organizational purposes and values are taught abstractly, then they

will either not be embraced or likely skewed in practice. Neither results in good leadership or

good followership. Thus, ritual is not subordinate to ethical thinking but a complement to it.

Further, the ethical dimension of ritual begins to touch upon any leadership theory that is

dyadic or polyadic in nature since leaders and followers are gravitating around a common

purpose. Ritual establishes the proper activity and shared attributes of leaders and followers

while never laying full power and authority in the leader. Rather, the power and authority lie in

the common purpose and values of the organization. Thus, ritual levels the disparity between

leaders and followers while retaining the unique roles that leaders and followers have.

This theoretical relationship between ritual and follower development opens up many

avenues of potential future research. First, identification of rituals and a measurement of their


strengths need to be developed. The material that has been provided by Smith and Stewart (2011)

lays the groundwork for the development of a simple instrument that could measure both ritual-

like attributes in activity while balancing that with a temporal item. Secondly, such an instrument

would allow researchers to identify similar rituals across organizational and cultural boundaries

so that rituals associated with the same purposes and values can be compared for effectiveness.

Thirdly, it is presumed that while some rituals will have similarity across organizational or

cultural boundaries, other rituals will be unable to make the leap into different organizations or

cultures because they are so bound to the community of origin. A complete understanding of

rituals in this manner is needed in order for leaders to identify the best means of communicating

organizational purposes and values. Finally, the ability to translate historical rituals into

contemporary contexts will be necessary both to import rituals from other communities and also

to most effectively leverage the rituals within an organization.

Organizational leaders are tasked with getting their followers to “do.” However, just any

“doing” is not sufficient; the “doing” must be within the context of the purposes and values of

the organization. Ritual is the bridge between the “doing” and the values. This goes beyond

training. If training teaches followers how to make particular widgets, it is successful. However,

followers making widgets “excellently” requires a method to teach followers what “excellently”

means; “excellently” is who the follower needs to become. Rituals are the most effective means

of this form of learning. Thus, the question of organizational ritual becomes, “What repeatable

activities or experiences will assist the follower in acting out the types of values that the

organization esteems?”


References

Adair, R. (2008). Developing great leaders, one follower at a time. In R. E. Riggio, I. Chaleff &

J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create great

leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Alcorn, D. S. (1992). Dynamic followership: Empowerment at work. Management Quarterly,

33(1), 9-9.

Anderson, H., & Foley, E. (1998). Mighty stories, dangerous rituals: Weaving together the

human and the divine. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Antelo, A., Prilipko, E. V., & Sheridan-Pereira, M. (2010). Assessing effective attributes of

followers in a leadership process. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(10), 1-

12. doi: 10.1177/10717919070130030201

Avolio, B. J., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The rise of authentic followership. In R. E. Riggio, I.

Chaleff & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great followers create

great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Baker, S. D. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundation of a contemporary construct.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14(1), 50(11).

Baker, S. D., Mathis, C. J., & Stites-Doe, S. (2011). An exploratory study investigating leader

and follower characteristics at U.S. healthcare organizations. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 23(3), 341.

Barrette, E. (2010). Balancing powers: Leadership and followship in community. Communities

(148), 30-33.

Bell, C. (1992). Ritual theory, ritual practice. New York: Oxford University Press.


Bjugstad, K., Thach, E. C., Thompson, K. J., & Morris, A. (2006). A fresh look at followership:

A model for matching followership and leadership styles. Journal of Behavioral &

Applied Management, 7(3), 304-319.

Brown, G. (2003). Theorizing ritual as performance: Explorations of ritual indeterminacy.

Journal of Ritual Studies, 17(1), 3-18.

Cavell, D. P. (2007). Leadership or followership: One or both?. Healthcare Financial

Management, 61(11), 142-144.

Chaleff, I. (2003). The courageous follower: Standing up to and for our leaders (2nd ed.). San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Cox, G., Hallett, J., & Winter, M. (1994). Hunting the wild red deer: The social organization and

ritual of a 'rural' institution. Die Jagd auf das Rotwild: Soziale Organisation und Ritual

einer 'ländlichen' Institution., 34(2/3), 190-205.

Dale, R. D. (1987). Leadership - followership: The church's challenge. Southwestern Journal of

Theology, 29(2), 23-28.

Dempsey, C. G. (2009). Reading and writing (to) the Devi: Reflections on unanticipated

ritualized ethnography. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 21(1), 28-39.

Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. H. (2001). The links between followership and the experiential

learning model: Followership coming of age.(employee training research). Journal of

Leadership Studies, 8(1), 69(68).

Dixon, G., & Westbrook, J. (2003). Followers revealed. Engineering Management Journal,

15(1), 19-25.

Driver, T. F. (1991). The magic of ritual: Our need for liberating rites that transform our lives

and our communities. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins Publishers.


Gardner, H. (1999). The vehicle and the vehicles of leadership. The American Behavioral

Scientist, 42(6), 1009-1023.

Garrity, R. B. (1993). Total quality management: An opportunity for high performance in federal

organizations. Public Administration Quarterly, 16(4), 430-459.

Gilbert, G. R., & Hyde, A. C. (1988). Followership and the federal worker. Public

Administration Review, 48(6), 962.

Gini, A. (1998). Moral leadership and business ethics. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), In Leading

organizations: Perspectives for a new era (pp. 360-371). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Publications.

Grimes, R. L. (1993). Reading, writing, and ritualizing. Washington, DC: The Pastoral Press.

Guthrie, C. F. (1999). Revelation in pastoral theology: Insights from panentheism and ritual

theory. Journal of Pastoral Theology, 9, 1-19.

Hogg, M. A. (2008). Social identity processes and the empowerment of followers. In R. E.

Riggio, I. Chaleff & J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How great

followers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Huizing, R. L. (2013). The Importance of ritual for follower development: An intertexture

analysis of Leviticus 23 in the Pauline corpus. Organizational Leadership Dissertation,

Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Islam, G., & Zyphur, M. J. (2009). Rituals in organizations: A review and expansion of current

theory. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 114-139.

Jennings, T. W. (1982). On ritual knowledge. The Journal of Religion, 62(2), 111-127.

Johnson, B. (2011). Good followership. Training Journal, 32-36.


Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creating change and changing leaders.

Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Kelley, R. E. (1992). The power of followership: How to create leaders people want to follow

and followers who lead themselves. New York: Doubleday Currency.

Latour, S. M., & Rast, V. J. (2004). Dynamic followership. Air & Space Power Journal, 18(4),

102.

Lundin, S. C., & Lancaster, L. C. (1990). Beyond leadership...the importance of followership.

Futurist, 24(3), 18.

Martin, J. H. (1996). Bringing the power of the past into the present: Murrinh-patha ritual. In M.

B. Aune & V. DeMarinis (Eds.), Religious and Social Ritual: Interdisciplinary

Explorations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Miller, R. L., Butler, J., & Cosentino, C. J. (2004). Followership effectiveness: an extension of

Fiedler's contingency model. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(3/4),

362-368.

Robinson, A. B. (2012). How to follow the leader. Christian Century, 129(1), 30.

Seteroff, S. S. (2003). Beyond leadership to followership: Learning to lead from where you are.

Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford Publishing.

Smith, A. C. T., & Stewart, B. (2011). Organizational rituals: Features, functions and

mechanisms. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 113-133. doi:

10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00288.x

Smith, J. Z. (1987). To take place: Toward theory in ritual. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.


Turner, V. W. (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Chicago: Aldine

Publishing Company.

Vallas, S. (2007). Reclaiming the theory of ritual: Recent debates, new perspectives. Conference

Papers -- American Sociological Association, 1.

Zaleznik, A. (1965). The dynamics of subordinacy. Harvard Business Review, 43(3), 119.

More Than Organizational Incantations: The Role of Ritual in Developing Followers

Documents

Transcript of More Than Organizational Incantations: The Role of Ritual in Developing Followers