Measuring

Followership: An Empirical Inves)ga)on of

the Kelley Followership Ques)onnaire-Revised
Kateryna V. Ligon, Ph.D. Kevin Rowell, Ph.D. Kevin B. Stoltz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Business Associate Professor of Psychology Assistant Professor of Educa2on
Central Bap2st College, Conway, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, The University of New Mexico Albuquerque,
Arkansas, USA Arkansas, USA NM, USA
kligon@cbc.edu kevinr@uca.edu kstoltz@unm.edu

Introduc)on Six Methodological Issues Methodology (con)nues) Emerged Factors(con)nues)

KFQ
Analyses
Turbulent times call for better
understanding of followers. This
study explores the validity of
Kelleys Followership
Questionnaire (KFQ) through a
revised version (KFQ-R).
Exploratory Factor Analysis and
Parallel Analysis both revealed a
three-factor model, which did not
support Kelleys two-
dimensional model. KFQ-R three
factors model accounted only for
47.42% of variance in the sample
(N=329). Developing and
validating more robust
followership instruments are
necessary for better training
followers to become engines of
change.
Kelley
Followership
communication, October 16, 2015).
Ques)onnaire
(KFQ)
The language used in the KFQ is
Limita)ons
Kelley used his experience in
research, teaching, consulting, and
personal views to guide him in the
model development.
Kelley interviewed over 700 people in
over 20 industries about their views
on leadership and followership.
Ques)ons
A three-factor solution was extracted
Sample included leaders and
followers (individually and in focus
groups) to identify followers, who
were the best, typical, and worst
employees.
Two themes emerged:
The independent, critical thinking
dimension thinking for
themselves, giving constructive
criticism, owning your own
person, and being innovative and
Plot
of
KFQ-R
and
creative (Kelley, 1992, p. 93).
Analysis
factors
The engagement dimension
taking initiative, assuming
8
with
The survey questions may contain
response bias (social desirability)
(Blanchard, Welbourne, Gilmore, &
Bullock, 2009; Gatti, Tartari, Cortese, &
Ghislieri, 2014; Thomas, 2014).
The majority of questions do not match
Kelleys theoretical constructs of
independent, critical thinking and
engagement (Blanchard et al., 2009;
Colangelo, 2000; Gatti et al., 2014;
Ghislieri, Gatti, & Cortese, 2015; Seeley,
2007).
The KFQ may measure more than just
two dimensions (Blanchard et al., 2009;
Colangelo, 2000; Gatti et al., 2014;
Seeley, 2007).
Validity and reliability of the KFQ are
still not supported (Blanchard et al.,
2009; Gatti et al., 2014; Colangelo,
2000; Seeley, 2007); (I. Chaleff, personal
communication, October 16, 2015); (R.
Koonce, personal communication,
October 13, 2015); (E. Prilipko, personal
KFQ-R.
complicated due to the use of compound
questions (double-barreled).
The language used in the survey is
outdated and difficult to comprehend
(Gatti et al., 2014; (R. Koonce, personal
communication, October 13, 2015; E.
Prilipko, personal communication,
October 16, 2015).
Research
This study tests Kelleys follower
conceptualization through the Kelley
Followership Questionnaire - Revised
(KFQ-R).
1) Will responses to the KFQ-R correlate with
the social desirability response bias
measure?
2) Will the KFQ-R structure yield two
proposed dimensions of independent,
critical thinking and engagement?
3) Will extracted factors from the KFQ-R
correlate with critical thinking disposition
(UF-EMI) and work engagement (UWES)?
9
Methodology
Factor 2: Leader-Centered Followership or
Preliminary data screening, tests of Typical Followership
KFQ R 24 Assert my views regardless of
normality (N = 374). coworkers
KFQ R 22 Blindly follow the leader
Missing data 43 (12.5%).
Eliminated 2 subjects as outliers of the KFQ R 14 Solve problems without leader
KFQ R 19 Achievement of leaders goals
KFQ-R (N = 329).
Factor 3: Disengaged Followership
Factor Analysis KFQ R 25 Assert my views regardless of the
Primary Factor Analysis with Varimax leader
Rotation in order to find simple structure KFQ R 23 Follow personal ethics
and to be consistent with Kelleys concept KFQ R 17 I help team evaluate ideas and plans
that independent, critical thinking and
Results Question 3:
engagement were uncorrelated constructs.
There will be no significant convergent
Convergent Validity with critical thinking
validity of the KFQ-R with critical thinking
disposition (UF-EMI) and work engagement
(UWES)
disposition or work engagement.
Results Question 1:
(r =. -.09). Factor one had a moderate
correlation with critical thinking
There will be no social desirability by the disposition (r =.55) and work
respondents as indicated by the correlation engagement (r =.52).
between the KFQ-R and the Marlowe- Factor two showed a significant medium
Crowne scale. correlation with critical thinking
r = .07, p =.20 disposition (r =.41) and significant
No significant social desirability was
moderately low correlation with work
engagement(r =.27).
found.
Factor three had a significant low
Results Question 2: correlation with critical thinking
There will be no interpretable factors of the disposition (r =.22) and almost no
correlation with work engagement
Principal Axis Factoring with Varimax
orthogonal rotation. Study
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) was . Results may not generalize to other types of
89 which exceeded the recommended . organizations except banks and a utility
70 and indicated that the data company.
correlations were suitable for this type
Lack of diversity may limit its
of analysis.
generalization to other ethnic groups or
Bartletts test of sphericity was
cultures (the majority of respondents were
significant (p < .001), thus sufficient
Caucasian, N=311; 94.6%).
correlation existed between the variables
The generalizability of findings may be
to progress with the analysis.
limited to white - collar workers only.
explaining 47.42% variance: Kelleys theory still has not shown to have
Exemplary followership (31.02% solid validity.
variance)
Leader-centered followership (8.78% References
variance) Blanchard, A., Welbourne, J., Gilmore, D., &
Disengaged followership (7.62% Bullock, A. (2009). Followership and employee
variance) attachment to the organization. The Psychologist-
Manager Journal, 12, 111131.
Reliability for Factor 1, = .89 was very
Colangelo, A. J. (2000). Followership: Leadership
good ; Factor 2, = .60 was poor; Factor 3, styles. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(05),
= .67 was fair. 1934.
Scree
Facione, P. A. (1990). Critical thinking: A
statement of expert consensus for purposes of
Parallel
educational assessment and instruction. Research
findings and recommendations. Newark, DE:
American Philosophical Association.

ownership, participating actively, Participants (N = 329)
being a self-starter, and going
Four banking institutions and a nonprofit
beyond the job (Kelley, 1992, p.
utility company in Arkansas.
94).
Bank employees in subordinate 3
7
Facione, P. A., Facione, N., & Giancarlo, C. (2000).
CCTDI test manual. Millbrae, CA: Insight
6
Assessment California Academic Press.
5
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual
4
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6),
693-727. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.001

Gatti, P., Tartari, M., Cortese, C. G., & Ghislieri, C.

KFQ True Dimensions positions were bank teller, customer
service clerk, accountant clerk, etc.
2

1
(2014). A contribution to the Italian validation of
Kelleys followership questionnaire. Testing
(N=238; 72.3%). Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied
Critical Thinking Disposition or an
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Utility employees were safety Psychology, 21(1), 67-87. doi:10.4473/TPM21.1.5.
"internal motivation to coordinator, customer services manager, KFQ-R Factors Factors of Parallel Analysis Ghislieri, C., Gatti, P., & Cortese, C. G. (2015). A
think" (Facione, P. A., Facione, N., & crew leader, customer service, etc. brief scale for investigating followership in nursing.
Giancarlo, C., 2000, p.1). (N=91; 27.7%).
Emerged Factors BPA-Applied Psychology Bulletin [Bollettino di
Psicologia Applicata], 63(272), 25-32.
approaches to life, living in Instruments Factor 1: Exemplary Followership Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New
general, specific issues, and Kelley's Followership Questionnaire KFQ R 7 Evaluate Activities York, NY: Doubleday.
questions or problems (Facione, Revised (KFQ-R). KFQ R 5 Contribute my best Seeley, T. A. (2007). The impact of followership
dimensions on affective commitment and in-role and
1990). 25 Likert items (1-7); = .88 KFQ R 8 Develop competencies to increase extra-role performance. Dissertation Abstracts
MarloweCrowne Scale (Social my value
Work Engagement or an internal drive International, 68, 662.
Desirability Scale) KFQ R 11 Finish assignments beyond my Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzlez-Rom,
to achieve significant personal and duties
10 T/F items; = low .70s to low .80s V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
societal contributions (Fry, 2003). KFQ R 13 Generate and evaluate new ideas engagement and burnout: A two sample
A positive, fulfilling, work- University of Florida Engagement, confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
KFQ R 2 Match work with my personal
related state of mind that is Cognitive Maturity, and Innovativeness fulfilment Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92. doi: 10.1023/A:
assignment (UF-EMI) 1015630930326
characterized by vigor, dedication, KFQ R 10 Complete assignments without
Thomas, D. (2014). Comparison of Rwandan and
and absorption" (Schaufeli, W. B., 26 Likert items (1-5); = .93 supervision
American followership styles. Journal of
Salanova, M., Gonzlez-Rom, V., Ultrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). KFQ R 3 Align of personal and work goals Leadership Education, 13(4),124-135. doi:
& Bakker, A.., 2002, p, 74). 9 Likert items (1-7); = .94 KFQ R1 Think of societal input though work 10.12806/V13/14/C13