Recent political developments suggest that political followership has played increasingly vital roles in modern democratic politics. However, scholarship seemingly lacks proper conceptual and methodological tools for analysing why and how citizens follow their leaders, and what the role of this relationship is in personalised politics and political leadership. Addressing the research gap, this article turns to generic leadership studies for help and introduces its follower-centric models into the field of political science. This venture opens with a review and comparison of some of the different perspectives about political followers in the scholarship on political leadership and personalisation, taking account of their limitations. It then moves on to assess follower-centric models and their empirical results, focusing on observers’ perceptions about the characteristics and behaviours of leaders in the attribution of leadership. Based on these models, the article offers a balanced perspective about leader–follower relations. Recommendations for future research directions are presented in the concluding sections.
AartsKBlaisASchmittH (eds) (2011) Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
AchenCHBartelsLM (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AgadjanianA (2020) When do partisans stop following the leader?Political Communication38(4): 351–369.
4.
AlabastroARastDELacAHoggMACranoWD (2013) Intergroup bias and perceived similarity: Effects of successes and failures on support for in- and outgroup political leaders. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations16(1): 58–67.
5.
BakerWDOnealJR (2001) Patriotism or opinion leadership? The nature and origins of the ‘rally ‘round the flag’ effect. The Journal of Conflict Resolution45(5): 661–687.
6.
BarberBR (2000) Neither leaders nor followers: Citizenship under strong democracy. In: BarberBR (ed.) A Passion for Democracy: American Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.95–110.
7.
BarberMPopeJC (2019) Does party Trump ideology? Disentangling party and ideology in America. American Political Science Review113(1): 38–54.
8.
BarisioneM (2009a) So, what difference do leaders make? Candidates’ images and the ‘conditionality’ of leader effects on voting. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(4): 473–500.
9.
BarisioneM (2009b) Valence image and the standardisation of democratic political leadership. Leadership5(1): 41–60.
10.
BennisterM’t HartPWorthyB (2017) The Leadership Capital Index: A New Perspective on Political Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
BittnerA (2011) Platform or Personality? The Role of Party Leaders in Elections. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
12.
BlighMCKohlesJCMeindlJR (2004) Charisma under crisis: Presidential leadership, rhetoric, and media responses before and after the September 11th terrorist attacks. The Leadership Quarterly15(2): 211–239.
13.
BlighMCKohlesJCPillaiR (2005) Crisis and charisma in the California recall election. Leadership1(3): 323–352.
14.
BlondelJ (2014) What have we learned? In: RhodesRAW’t HartP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp.705–718.
15.
BroockmanDEButlerDM (2017) The causal effects of elite position-taking on voter attitudes: Field experiments with elite communication. American Journal of Political Science61(1): 208–221.
16.
BrownA (2014) The Myth of the Strong Leader: Political Leadership in Modern Politics. New York: Basic Books.
17.
BurnsJM (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
18.
CampbellAConversePMillerWStokesDE (1960) The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
CampusDSwitekNValbruzziM (2021) Collective Leadership and Divided Power in West European Parties. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
20.
CapraraGVZimbardoPG (2004) Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist59(7): 581–594.
21.
CarstenMKBlighMCKohlesJCLauVW-Y (2019) A follower-centric approach to the 2016 U.S. presidential election: Candidate rhetoric and follower attributions of charisma and effectiveness. Leadership15(2): 179–204.
22.
ChristianJNayyarDRiggioRAbramsD (2018) Them and us: Did democrat inclusiveness and republican solidarity lead to the 2016 U.S. presidential election outcome?Leadership14(5): 524–542.
23.
De VriesREVan ProoijenJ-W (2019) Voters rating politicians’ personality: Evaluative biases and assumed similarity on honesty-humility and openness to experience. Personality and Individual Differences144: 100–104.
24.
DruckmanJNLevenduskyMS (2019) What do we measure when we measure affective polarization?Public Opinion Quarterly83(1): 114–122.
25.
ElgieR (1995) Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies. Basingstoke: Red Globe Press.
26.
ElgieR (2011) Core executive studies two decades on. Public Administration89(1): 64–77.
27.
ElgieR (2015) Studying Political Leadership: Foundations and Contending Accounts. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
FiorinaMShepsleK (1989) Formal theories of leadership: Agents, agenda-setters, and entrepreneurs. In: JonesBD (ed.) Leadership and Politics: New Perspectives in Political Science. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, pp.17–40.
29.
FlindersM (2012) Defending Politics: Why Democracy Matters in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
FoaRSMounkY (2016) The danger of deconsolidation: The democratic disconnect. Journal of Democracy27(3): 5–17.
31.
FotiRJFraserSLLordRG (1982) Effects of leadership labels and prototypes on perceptions of political leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology67(3): 326–333.
32.
GarziaD (2011) The personalization of politics in Western democracies: Causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly22(4): 697–709.
33.
GarziaD (2013) Changing parties, changing partisans: The personalization of partisan attachments in Western Europe. Political Psychology34(1): 67–89.
34.
GarziaDda SilvaFF (2021) Negative personalization and voting behavior in 14 parliamentary democracies, 1961–2018. Electoral Studies71: 102300.
35.
GarziaDda SilvaFFDe AngelisA (2020) Partisan dealignment and the personalisation of politics in West European parliamentary democracies, 1961–2018. West European Politics. Epub ahead of print 2 December. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2020.1845941.
36.
GherghinaS (2021) Party members and leadership styles in new European democracies. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations23(1): 85–103.
37.
GiessnerSRVan KnippenbergDSleebosE (2009) License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly20(3): 434–451.
38.
GreeneS (2001) The role of character assessments in presidential approval. American Politics Research29(2): 196–210.
39.
HartleyJ (2018) Ten propositions about public leadership. International Journal of Public Leadership14(4): 202–217.
40.
HaslamSAReicherSPlatowM (2020) The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. New York: Routledge.
41.
HayesD (2005) Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: A theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science49(4): 908–923.
42.
HelmsL (2005) Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Chancellors: Executive Leadership in Western Democracies. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
43.
HelmsL (ed.) (2012) Poor Leadership and Bad Governance: Reassessing Presidents and Prime Ministers in North America, Europe and Japan. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.
44.
HetheringtonMJNelsonM (2003) Anatomy of a rally effect: George W. Bush and the war on terrorism. PS: Political Science and Politics36(1): 37–42.
45.
HoggMA (2001) A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review5(3): 184–200.
46.
HoggMAVan KnippenbergDRastDE (2012) The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology23(1): 258–304.
47.
HowellJMShamirB (2005) The role of followers in the charismatic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences. The Academy of Management Review30(1): 96–112.
48.
KaneJPatapanH’t HartP (eds) (2009) Dispersed Democratic Leadership: Origins, Dynamics, and Implications. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalisation of Politics: A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
50.
KellermanB (2008) Followership: How Followers Are Creating Change and Changing Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
51.
KinderDR (1986) Presidential character revisited. In: LauRRSearsDO (eds) Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.233–256.
52.
KinderDRPetersMDAbelsonRPFiskeST (1980) Presidential prototypes. Political Behavior2(4): 315–337.
53.
KingA (ed.) (2002) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
54.
LenzGS (2012) Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press.
55.
LoboMC (2014) Party and electoral leadership. In: RhodesRAW’t HartP (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp.362–375.
56.
LoboMCCurticeJ (eds) (2015) Personality Politics? The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
57.
LordRGMaherKJ (1993) Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. London; New York: Routledge.
58.
LordRGEpitropakiOFotiRJHansbroughTK (2020) Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior7(1): 49–74.
59.
McAllisterI (2007) The personalization of politics. In: DaltonRJKlingemannH-D (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.571–588.
60.
McDonnellD (2016) Populist leaders and coterie charisma. Political Studies64(3): 719–733.
61.
MaurerTJMaherKJAsheDKMitchellDRD (1993) Leadership perceptions in relation to a presidential vote. Journal of Applied Social Psychology23(12): 959–979.
62.
MedvicSK (2013) In Defense of Politicians: The Expectations Trap and Its Threat to Democracy. New York: Routledge.
63.
MeindlJR (1990) On leadership: An alternative to the conventional wisdom. Research in Organizational Behavior12: 159–203.
64.
MeindlJR (1995) The romance of leadership as a follower-centric theory: A social constructionist approach. The Leadership Quarterly6(3): 329–341.
65.
MeindlJR (2004) Romance of leadership. In: GoethalsGRSorensonGJBurnsJM (eds) Encyclopedia of Leadership. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publishing, pp.1347–1351.
66.
MeindlJREhrlichSBDukerichJM (1985) The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly30(1): 78–102.
67.
MetzR (2021) Democratic leadership as a political weapon: Competition between fictions and practices. International Journal of Public Leadership. Epub ahead of print 1 March. DOI: 10.1108/IJPL-09-2020-0094.
68.
MillerAHWattenbergMPMalanchukO (1986) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review80(2): 521–540.
69.
MuellerJE (1970) Presidential popularity from Truman to Johnson. American Political Science Review64(1): 18–34.
70.
NewmanB (2003) Integrity and presidential approval, 1980-2000. Public Opinion Quarterly67(3): 335–367.
71.
NyeJS (2008) The Powers to Lead. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
OffermannLRCoatsMR (2018) Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly29(4): 513–522.
73.
PageBIJonesCC (1979) Reciprocal effects of policy preferences, party loyalties and the vote. American Political Science Review73(4): 1071–1089.
74.
PastorJCMayoMShamirB (2007) Adding fuel to fire: The impact of followers’ arousal on ratings of charisma. Journal of Applied Psychology92(6): 1584–1596.
75.
PillaiRWilliamsEA (1998) Does leadership matter in the political arena? Voter perceptions of candidates’ transformational and charismatic leadership and the 1996 U.S. president. The Leadership Quarterly9(3): 397–416.
76.
PillaiRWilliamsEALoweKBJungDI (2003) Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly14(2): 161–192.
77.
PlatowMJVan KnippenbergD (2001) A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(11): 1508–1519.
78.
PoguntkeTWebbP (2018) Presidentialization, personalization and populism. The hollowing out of party government. In: CrossWPKatzRSPruysersS (eds) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. London; New York: ECPR Press, pp.181–197.
79.
RahatGSheaferT (2007) The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949–2003. Political Communication24(1): 65–80.
80.
RahnWMAldrichJHBorgidaESullivanJL (1990) A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In: FerejohnJAKulkinskiJH (eds) Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp.136–159.
81.
RossL (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp.173–220.
82.
ShamirB (1992) Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: The romance of leadership revisited. Journal of Applied Social Psychology22(5): 386–407.
83.
ShamirB (1994) Ideological position, leaders’ charisma, and voting preferences: Personal vs. partisan elections. Political Behavior16(2): 265–287.
84.
ShamirB (2009) From passive recipients to active co-producers: Followers’ role in the leadership process. In: ShamirBPillaiRBlighMCUhl-BienM (eds) Follower-Centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Meindl. Greenwich, CT: IAP, pp.ix–xxxix.
85.
SkowronekS (1997) The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
86.
SteffensNKHaslamSAReicherSD (2014) Up close and personal: Evidence that shared social identity is a basis for the ‘special’ relationship that binds followers to leaders. The Leadership Quarterly25(2): 296–313.
87.
SullivanJLAldrichJHBorgidaERahnW (1990) Candidate appraisal and human nature: Man and superman in the 1984 election. Political Psychology11(3): 459–484.
88.
Uhl-BienMRiggioRELoweKBCarstenMK (2014) Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly25(1): 83–104.
89.
WilliamsEAPillaiRDeptulaBLoweKB (2012) The effects of crisis, cynicism about change, and value congruence on perceptions of authentic leadership and attributed charisma in the 2008 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly23(3): 324–341.
90.
WilliamsEAPillaiRLoweKBJungDHerstD (2009) Crisis, charisma, values, and voting behavior in the 2004 presidential election. The Leadership Quarterly20(2): 70–86.
