Leadership And Follow-ship Styles For Effective Team Performance In A Simulation

Familiarity and Team Performance

As an effective leader, it is fundamental to use a particular leadership style or a combination of relevant styles to guide team members (Babiak, 2014). In that case, successful team leaders have the capability to enhance productivity and creativity, which operate towards advancing the bottom-line of business activities. It is also evident that employees respect some leaders, but this does not define effective leadership. However, the application of effective leadership and follow-ship styles is essential to allow the business to operate towards the desire framework without any form of dictation. This report critically analyses four leadership and follow-ship styles that are applicable in the HOTS simulation. The paper also justifies the relevance of these styles based on the experience of team members.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

Over the teams’ cumulative experience and relevant members, the selection of appropriate leadership and follow-ship style is based on the familiarity of team members (Day, 2004). Familiarity delineates the state of operation and performance of team members in reference to experience. In the simulation setting, the familiarity of the team is determined using the cumulative experience since members of the team have been stable both in structure and in composition. In a setting where team members are not stable, the cumulative experience and familiarity degree is general and distinct (Kirkman and Harris, 2017). Particularly, team members might have collaborated in the past without associating other members, which shows that leaders need to consider the measure of familiarity to determine the chances of employees delivering the best performance. The experience of the team can be analyzed based on two fundamental classes, which are; group operation willingness and coordination probability. When a given team is engaged in a particular obligation that expects them to collaborate and share skills, determining the level of familiarity will be fundamental to enhance the ability of members to performance in a synchronized way.

The analysis and literature on knowledge and initiative sharing implies that followers can transmit technical skills to others when the degree of familiarity is high despite the cost and social processes involved (Lapierre and Carsten, 2014). Having a recurring experience with team member creates an environment that necessitates the transfer of information to stimulate the expected dialogue over organization’s problems. Familiarity that allows workers to share information calls for individuals to facilitate human capital and technological initiatives to influence and achieve the desired strategic performance. The same rationale in reference to the team’s level of coordination is justified using transitional systems. Particularly, the transitional system is an accurate representation of combined members’ knowledge to identifying specific strategies that will enhance performance. Hence, the ideology of identifying key members with specific expertise is valid in the workforce where leaders assign tasks to individuals without predefinitions.

Leadership Styles in the Simulation

Leadership Style 1: The hands-on Participants

In our team, the leader appeared to apply the hand-on participants’ style. This leadership style allowed the leader to collaborative with members by considering their input and opinions when making organizational decisions. With this leadership style, team members can deliver the best opinions, which place the leader in a co-working position adored by workers (Moore, 2018). Despite the fact that this leadership style is effective to enhance performance, it takes time for employees to embrace it. For a quick decision-making process to be considered valid for the company, team members need to input more effort without compromising the performance quality.

Save Time On Research and Writing
Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper.
Get My Paper

The Laissez Faire is another leadership style that our team leader appeared to use. The leadership style is the opposite of the autocratic style, which implies that workers needed to operate according to their own will. According to Burns (2017), the style applies a doctrine of opposition over economic affairs more than the standardized property and peace maintenance rights in economic perspective. To a creative working environment, this style is beneficial, but lacks the expected structure and discipline desired for a normal business surrounding. Moreover, the leadership style is characterized by its unstructured learning approach since it is entirely dependent on teams’ experience, creativity and talents to enhance the expected strategic results in a company (Tosunoglu, 2016).

According to Lacson, Tabisula and Abis (2001), the transformative style of leadership is one of the best when comparing different forms of leadership styles that boost global business activities. The leader used this style to allow members to operate and think critically. The main characteristic of leaders using this style is that they are motivating and charismatic and help their staff to achieve the company’s strategic goals and objectives. Although leaders will not undertake a scrutiny of daily organizational details, they will require managers who are dedicated to avail a comprehensive strategy that ensures workers handle daily processes and administrative mandates effectively as argued by Wunker (2012).

This leadership style strictly focusses on processes, work and rewards, which facilitate the delivering of best results by our team members. Despite the fact that transactional leaders are deficiency of charisma and hype, there are able to stimulate workers to produce the desired results, which any business recommends (Sarkar and Ray, 2014). The style is not as harsh as the autocratic style since are some punishments attached to poor performance from employees. The merit that comes with this style is that employees are rewards for the better performance in an organization. The rewards and incentives might be a salary increment or commissions and bonuses on sales made. However, monetary incentives are the most motivating reward for employees’ productive activities in the company (Sarkar and Ray, 2014). Apart from issuing monetary rewards, transitional leaders apply recognized processes, which result to consistent performance.

Follow-ship styles in the Simulation

Follow-ship Style 1: Pragmatic

Pragmatic followers undertake their roles in a realistic manner according to stipulated regulations, rules and legitimated powers. However, these follower exercise political actions in the company and carrying tasks with moderate fervor (Carsten and Uhl-Bien, 2012).  Pragmatic workers believe that operative within the set rules is significant to eliminate instabilities and uncertainties.

This form of follows always regard to themselves. However, they play a significant duty as criticizers in a team. Resultantly, their actions facilitate the enhancement of the process of decision-making in the company. Acting as whistle blower to other staff member, these followers cause a certain level of attention to leaders who do not recognize their individual talents or input in the company.

Convectional followers accept tasks assigned to them easily and act as individuals who minimize conflicts in the organization (Grossman and Valiga, 2013). Additionally, these followers lack creativity and unable to make audacious choices or applying risk taking strategies. Operating to avoid any upcoming conflicts, these followers believe that an established company is better compared to the desired results.

Passive followers depend on the choices of their leaders entirely while rarely challenging any process. Operating to avoid any form of resistance, the followers are subjected to too much supervision due to the presumption that the might be tempted to spend and pass time under minimal supervision. These followers have concluded that the company does not appreciate their thoughts and the leaders act according to their own interest.

The hands-on participants’ style fits to the experience of team members in the simulation. The team leader appeared to considers decisions made by members effectively, an approach that is recommended globally. As for the Laissez Faire leadership style, the leader did not appear to receive kickbacks or avoid doing any work. This leadership style fit the experience of team members because the leader was actively involved in delivering reliable responses on performance and relevant recommendations to facilitate developments. The application of the Laissez Faire technique is possible when team members are trustworthy and competent with the goals and objectives of an organization. Hence, the simulation is exercised effectively using this leadership style.

There are certain fundamental characteristics accorded to leaders who desire to apply Transformative leader. These characteristics include having a high-level charisma and energy to undertake different supervision activities and apply relevant risk management approaches (Moore, Odom and Boyd, 2017). Having appropriately applied this concept, it was evident from the leader that an individual cannot fake the style because followers can be able to detect any deceit of organizational vision and its authenticity. In the simulation, the leader applied the Transformative style of leadership to illustrate a passion in services, sales and technology. Concerning the transactional style, it conforms to the team’s experience as goal-oriented individuals who have clearly defined means to attain the desired strategic goals. The leader evidently used this approach by offering incentives to team members as a form of motivation approach to help them input more effort to attain better performance. Leaders issue rewards and incentives to employees since the delivery of more sales is leaders’ ultimate desire.

Preference for Leadership and Follow-ship Styles

The preference for a style of leadership and follow-ship differs according to the experience of the team. However, there is a high tendency to regard the transformative leadership style. This implies that the preference for a leadership style and a consequent team-leader relationship are more effective when the transformative style used irrespective of the experience of the team. As for the follow-ship style, an effective follower is ideal. Although this style is not always easy to apply, it demonstrates a high level of integrity and courage from an individual applying it as illustrated by Kippenberger (2002). The experience of followers is expected to apply the quality of courage as a sub-ordinate staff.  For this style for be put into practice, team members need to identify their own stands and deliver their own opinions to leaders. Although this approach might sound as taking risk on your job, it sometimes leads to a change on certain misconducts in the organization. Effective team members always feel adequate to undertake challenges and responsibilities to facilitate change in the company.

Analyzing these preferences in the setting of HOT simulation, it is evident that Transformative style liberates the actions of team members. In an organization, both the employees and leaders need to work together to attain a particular strategic goal. Moreover, the simulation exercise evidently indicated that leaders are more focused on ensuring the project is done instead of dictating roles and jobs. This keeps all the team members motivated and enthusiastic since incentives and rewards are applied to individuals performing better.

In a setting whereby employees are operating under time constraints, it will be impossible to apply relational-based leadership styles because work obligations are defined as short-term and not long-term (Musselwhite, 2008). Therefore, goal-oriented style is effective for short-term job obligations in the simulation. Based on the experience of team members, delivering the best performance within a particular timeframe is efficient for the organization. Therefore the necessity to enhance quick and efficient performance within a short time call for the application of goal-oriented and rewarding style of leadership.

As for the fellowship style, an effective follower will have the effectiveness and courage to question leaders (Ross and Sharapov, 2013). In the simulation, members of the team are willing to risk their job positions and integrity for the future benefit of the company. In case the decision and action of leaders are opposite to the organization’s interest, effective members will always raise an alarm. Having the courage to take part in the transformation of the organization, means that members were able to consider the relevance of change and its common interest to both members and leaders. In an event when the organization undergoes an extensive transformation, effective members will be there to support the company. These followers are no afraid of evaluating and confronting any proposed change toward transforming and shaping the company. Having the stand to offer services indicated that effective followers are conversant with the objectives of the organization and are willing to operate to achieve them. Effective followers are willing to serve other just as leaders do.


In conclusion, a leadership style explains how leaders lead the followers. When an inappropriate style is selected, the leadership exercise may fail during an execution of a particular project. Moreover, a leader using an improper style is less likely to create a good relationship with team members. In reference to the HOTS simulation, the Transformative leadership style and effective fellowship style are operative according to the experience of team members. The paper has shown that there is relationship between the level of experience of a team and the style of leadership used by a leader. Transformative style allows team members to think and operative according to the set objectives of the organization, which resultantly enhances performance. Leaders applying this approach embrace charisma and motivation to enable employees to work more towards achieving strategic goals.


Babiak, J. (2014). Polish Managers’ Leadership Styles: Developing and Validating the Managerial Styles of a Leading Questionnaire. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology, 12(2), pp.41-63.

Burns, W. (2017). A Descriptive Literature Review of Harmful Leadership Styles: Definitions, Commonalities, Measurements, Negative Impacts, and Ways to Improve These Harmful leadership Styles. Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership, 3(1), p.33.

Carsten, M. and Uhl-Bien, M. (2012). Ethical Followership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), pp.49-61.

Day, D. (2004). The leadership quarterly Special Issue on Leadership in Team-based Organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(4), pp.591-592.

Grossman, S. and Valiga, T. (2013). The New Leadership Challenge. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.

Kippenberger, T. (2002). Leadership styles. Oxford, U.K.: Capstone Pub.

Kirkman, B. and Harris, T. (2017). 3D team leadership. Stanford, California: Stanford Business Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press.

Lacson, C., Tabisula, R. and Abis, M. (2001). Trainer’s manual on transformative leadership training for co-operatives. Quezon City, Philippines: Asian Women in Co-operative Development Forum.

Lapierre, L. and Carsten, M. (2014). Followership. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Moore, J. (2018). Hands-on or Heads-up? Strategic Foresight as the Heart of the Board’s Work. Board Leadership, 2018(159), pp.7-8.

Moore, L., Odom, S. and Boyd, B. (2017). The Team Leadership Summit: Culminating the Leadership Experience. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(3), pp.1-8.

Musselwhite, C. (2008). In focus/dealing with change-Knowing change preferences is a boon for leaders. Leadership in Action, 28(3), pp.17-20.

Ross, J. and Sharapov, D. (2013). Follow the follower? Performance consequences of leader-follower imitation under uncertainty. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), p.16790.

Sarkar, M. and Ray, A. (2014). Transactional Leadership Styles of Heads of the Departments. Saarbru?cken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Tosunoglu, H. (2016). Laissez-Faire leaders and organizations: how does Laissez-Faire leader erode the trust in organizations. Pressacademia, 3(1), pp.89-89.

Wunker, S. (2012). Better growth decisions: early mover, fast follower or late follower?. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), pp.43-48.