Develop leadership practices and effective followership
Apply Kouzes and Posner’s five leadership practices and Kelley’s two-dimensional followership model without treating a questionnaire or style label as a fixed judgement of a person.
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.2, 2028–2030 Version 1. Example studies illustrate the syllabus and are not official Cambridge materials or mark schemes.
Before you begin
- This lesson covers Cambridge Psychology 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.2.3. The practices and styles are frameworks for analysing behaviour, not fixed personality diagnoses or official grading criteria.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Which pair gives Kelley’s two dimensions?
What you will learn
- Kouzes and Posner’s five Leadership Practices Inventory practices
- Kelley’s definition, two dimensions and five followership styles
Kouzes and Posner describe five practices leaders can develop
The five practices are Model the Way, Inspire a Shared Vision, Challenge the Process, Enable Others to Act and Encourage the Heart. They describe behaviours leaders can practise: clarify values and act consistently; describe a shared possibility; look for ways to improve and learn; build collaboration and capability; and recognise contribution.
The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) is associated with this framework and uses behaviour ratings. Ratings can support reflection and feedback, but scores depend on who responds, what behaviour is visible and the context. An inventory score is not an objective proof of leader quality, a clinical test or a guarantee of team outcomes.
The practices can be applied together. For example, a leader who invites experimentation (Challenge the Process) should also Enable Others to Act by providing time, resources and shared decision-making. Recognition (Encourage the Heart) should be specific and fair rather than a substitute for safe conditions or adequate pay.
Kelley treats followership as active participation with independent judgement
Followership is the process of contributing to shared work while working with, supporting or challenging a leader. It is not simply obedience. Kelley’s framework classifies followership using two dimensions: independent, critical thinking and the level of active engagement.
The five styles occupy different positions on those dimensions. Passive followers show low independent thinking and low engagement; conformists show higher engagement but less independent challenge; alienated followers think independently but engage less; pragmatists sit near the middle; exemplary (also called effective) followers combine independent critical thinking with active engagement.
These labels describe patterns in a model, not permanent types of people. The same person may act differently across teams, tasks or power relationships. A low-engagement response can reflect barriers, exclusion or risk, not a personal flaw. Use the framework to ask what conditions help people contribute safely and constructively.
Leadership and followership depend on one another
A team needs clear responsibility and constructive challenge. Leaders can make it safer to raise concerns and share decisions; followers can contribute evidence, ask questions and speak up about risks. High engagement does not mean agreeing with every instruction, and independent thinking does not mean opposition for its own sake.
To evaluate a leadership or followership intervention, define the desired behaviour, collect perspectives from more than one role, check who can participate and consider power differences. Self-report scores, observed behaviour and outcomes provide different evidence. A rise in one score does not by itself prove a healthier or more effective team.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Kouzes and Posner, The Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership
- Kelley (1988), In Praise of Followers
- Uhl-Bien et al. (2014), Followership theory: A review and research agenda
Pause and explain
Which list contains all five Kouzes and Posner practices?
Worked example
A project lead says, ‘We will improve access for every student,’ invites team members to test small changes, gives them authority to adapt materials and thanks people who report problems. One team member questions the deadline using accessibility evidence. Identify relevant Kouzes and Posner practices and classify the team member’s followership behaviour.
Show the worked solution
- Link each practice to a concrete action rather than listing labels without evidence.
- Use Kelley’s independent-thinking and engagement dimensions to analyse the team member.
- Consider whether the team climate supports challenge and whether other evidence is needed.
Answer The shared access goal reflects Inspire a Shared Vision; inviting experiments reflects Challenge the Process; granting authority supports Enable Others to Act; and acknowledging reports reflects Encourage the Heart. The team member is actively engaged and uses independent critical thinking, consistent with Kelley’s exemplary/effective quadrant. One act does not establish a permanent style, and the team lead should examine whether feedback is genuinely welcomed.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A staff member actively completes tasks but repeats the manager’s view without examining conflicting safety evidence. Use Kelley’s dimensions to classify the pattern and suggest a constructive response.
Give me a hint
Engagement and independent critical thinking are separate dimensions.
Compare my reasoning
- Completing tasks shows active engagement.
- Not examining conflicting evidence suggests lower independent critical challenge in this example.
- The pattern is consistent with conformist followership, but one episode is not a permanent label.
- Invite evidence-based questions and check whether speaking up is safe.
The behaviour is consistent with high engagement and lower independent challenge, the conformist region of Kelley’s model. It should not be used as a permanent label. The leader can ask for evidence and alternative views, and should check that raising a safety concern will not lead to retaliation.
Look for these in your work
- Both dimensions considered
- Style named cautiously
- Power and safety addressed
A team says its leader ‘models the way’ because the leader gives frequent speeches about honesty. Evaluate the claim using Kouzes and Posner’s practices.
Give me a hint
Compare stated values with observable actions and consider whether one practice alone supports the claim.
Compare my reasoning
- Model the Way involves clarifying values and acting consistently with them.
- Speeches show communication but do not establish consistent behaviour.
- Check how the leader responds to mistakes, reports and decisions that carry a cost.
- Use more than one perspective and distinguish practice ratings from team outcomes.
Speeches can communicate values but cannot establish that the leader models them. Evidence would include consistent decisions, transparent handling of mistakes and whether staff observe the same standards applied to the leader. The other four practices require separate evidence. LPI-style ratings can organise feedback, but their source and context should be reported and they do not prove outcomes by themselves.
Look for these in your work
- Practice defined accurately
- Observable consistency assessed
- Measurement limits stated
A team wants to improve reporting of near misses. Design one leadership action and one followership support using these frameworks, and define a careful evaluation.
Give me a hint
Pair a Kouzes and Posner practice with conditions that allow critical, active contribution.
Compare my reasoning
- Choose a relevant practice, such as Enable Others to Act, and give staff time and a safe reporting route.
- Encourage active, independent followership by inviting questions and responding without blame.
- Track reporting access, response time and resolution while protecting confidentiality.
- Interpret increased reports as possible improved visibility, not automatically as more incidents or worse safety.
A leader could Enable Others to Act by providing a protected reporting route and giving the team authority to propose fixes. They can Encourage the Heart through specific recognition of constructive reporting, without rewarding low report counts. Evaluation should examine who can report, response time, resolution and repeated staff feedback. An increase in near-miss reports may mean that reporting is safer; it does not by itself mean underlying safety has worsened.
Look for these in your work
- Leadership practice tied to action
- Critical followership enabled
- Evaluation avoids a misleading single metric
Common mistakes
- Misnaming or merging the five Kouzes and Posner practices
- Assuming LPI ratings objectively prove a person’s leadership quality
- Equating followership with unquestioning obedience
- Classifying a person from a single behaviour as a permanent follower style
- Using Kelley’s model to blame people who face exclusion or unsafe power dynamics
- Confusing high engagement with independent critical thinking
What can you explain now?
What two dimensions does Kelley use to distinguish followership styles?
Compare with the explanation
Independent critical thinking and active engagement.
Locate a behaviour on both dimensions before naming a style.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Recall Kouzes and Posner’s five practices, locate behaviour on Kelley’s two dimensions, and name the five styles without treating them as fixed personal types.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.