Skip navigation

Steward Followership Measurement

Steward Followership Measurement

George B. Warton | 2016

Abstract

Undergraduate leadership institutions pride themselves on their ability to produce graduates with the requisite leadership tools to navigate the organizational milieu their fledgling leaders will encounter. However, gaps in the theoretical underpinnings of leadership, particularly followership, likely leave the recent leadership graduate without the necessary tools to navigate the leadership requirements in today’s organization (Chaleff, 2009; Kelley, 2010; Uhl-Bien, Riggio, Lowe, & Carsten, 2014). The purpose of this dissertation is to establish the steward follower as a theoretical outworking of courageous, exemplary, implicit, and ethical followership together with coproduction of leadership established within a steward leader paradigm (Carsten & Uhl-Bien, 2012, 2013; Chaleff, 2009; Kelley, 1992; Rich, 2012; Rodin, 2010; Sy, 2010). Following the conceptual establishment of the steward follower, an instrument originally proposed as a three-dimension followership measure (Kaak, Reynolds, & Whyte, 2013) is redesigned into the two-construct Steward Followership Measurement contrasting steward and egoistic followership. The instrument was rewritten as a result of the original design not meeting reliability and validity standards determined through statistical testing. The first survey of 1,576 cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) in August 2014 (Warton & O’Donnell, 2014) found that the dimensions of maturity and compliant followers factored to a single dimension describing the traits of the steward follower. The dimension of resistant follower was found to be unreliable and, therefore, rewritten for a subsequent survey in October 2015 of 1,146 cadets and renamed the Egoistic Follower Scale (Warton & O’Donnell, 2015). The results from the second survey utilizing the Steward Followership Measurement containing the steward follower and egoistic follower scales were determined to be both reliable and valid. Further, the results of the two surveys are instructive to the USAFA and others beyond the scope of this research focus.