Co Production Leadership Ethics Followership

Q. How can I expand or advance the conversation by new insight or perspective?

I agree with you that the co-production of leadership mode suggested by Carsten & Uhl-Bien (2013) is a useful way of thinking about ethics as something that is not simply achieved via good leadership, but also via good followership. Good followers can and must speak out when they see poor ethical practices. The co-production of leadership, however, suggests that it is important not simply to speak out when a follower sees something that violates the articulated ethics of the organization vision statement, or in the ethics explicitly advocated by the superior, but when the follower wants the organization to elevate its ethical practices to the next level.

The problem arises when there may be ethical conflicts inherent in the organization’s business model. For example, what about an organization with a sales-based culture that deliberately pits employees against one another to meet sales goals? Or an organization which sells an unethical product, or uses unethical processes to meet production goals, such as outsourcing labor to a country where very low wages are the standard?

In such an instance, a subordinate can certainly try to offer input into the ethics of the organization, but there may be limits to what he or she can achieve. A good organization, I believe, will deliberately try to hire employees who follow the types of practice listed on the Followership Role Assessment and embody the types of ideals celebrated by Johnson (2022).

I think you make an excellent point that leaders must set up an organizational structure to foster such open dialogue and constructive disagreement. If followers are penalized or let go if they open up about issues which disturb them, there is a limit to how much true co-production in leadership and followership can achieve on an individual basis. Followership and leadership are ultimately about give and take between both leaders and followers. Followers must trust leaders to be honest.

Carsten, M. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Ethical followership: An examination of followership

beliefs and crimes of obedience. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812465890

Johnson, C. E. (2022). Organizational ethics: A practical approach (5th ed.). Sage.

Q2. Is there an assumption being made that the author is not aware of or has not adequately supported?

I like your stress upon followers retaining separate identities, given all too often in organizations today there is an emphasis upon creating a homogenous sense of agreement in the name of teamwork. Unfortunately, this can give rise to groupthink, which is the antithesis of thoughtful followership. However, the idea that the follower must complement the leader still underlines the fact that no matter how strong the follower, the leader to some extent must consent to the follower having input (Reed, 2015). In other words, co-production leadership beliefs are important and can be very valuable for the organization, but the organization must be set up to support co-production. This is an assumption I would like to examine more closely—what exactly co-production of leadership entails in an active and critical fashion.

I agree that to be truly ethical, sometimes followers must be courageous and speak out. But the question of whether followers will be rewarded for whistleblowing or speaking out, even if other employees are violating policy, endangering others, or breaking the law, must be answered by the organization. Organizations usually give lip service to ethics and sustainability on their social media, but often it is only employees who know the degree to which this is really practiced versus simply preached. As you note, leaders themselves must have co-production beliefs (Johnson, 2022).