Keywords

In this chapter, Chaleff’s (2009) courageous followership model is considered as a viable method for overcoming groupthink when applied by an individual group member. Nicodemus’ role as a member of the Sanhedrin is analyzed in this vein using a social intertexture approach. Nicodemus is only presented in the Gospel of John, and he only enters the narrative at three points. Scholars and commentators have long pondered, from various viewpoints, the significance of John’s inclusion of Nicodemus. This chapter does not attempt to address these questions in great detail but, instead, is focused on developing a clearer understanding of Nicodemus’ role as a courageous follower and how that courageous followership role may have been useful in his overcoming the groupthink experienced within the Sanhedrin. To lay the appropriate foundation, certain relevant points of background information concerning groupthink, the Sanhedrin, and Nicodemus in John’s gospel are provided. As the major theoretical construct utilized in the study, a review of the followership literature is provided including historical aspects of followership, bad followership, and a special focus on courageous followership. The social intertexture analysis method is described and then applied to John’s narratives involving Nicodemus in order to clarify understanding regarding several critical aspects of those passages. Ultimately, a discussion of the conclusions derived from the study is provided with special focus on recommendations for followers, leaders, and groups. This chapter adds value to the overall understanding of Nicodemus because, if he is and ought to be viewed as a courageous follower, many questions concerning him are either answered or are rendered unnecessary. This chapter’s ultimate value may be found in the final analysis where it is determined that the practice of courageous followership is a useful method for individual group members in overcoming the groupthink phenomenon.

Background Information

The primary focus of this chapter is determining the extent to which Nicodemus was exhibiting courageous follower attributes and, if so, how those courageous follower actions drove his ability to overcome the strong mainstream position within his group—the Sanhedrin. In order to reach that point, it is necessary to first explore some background information concerning elements of groupthink that can at least partially inform the actions of the Sanhedrin group related to Jesus and what is understood relative to John’s inclusion of Nicodemus in his gospel. Groupthink theory and the Sanhedrin group are only briefly discussed here as Bell (2016) provided a full review of the groupthink theory and established evidence indicating the Sanhedrin were immersed in a state of groupthink. John’s gospel presents three different accounts of Nicodemus that are reviewed along with some of the commentaries which attempt to explain Nicodemus and his role in the Sanhedrin group.

Groupthink

The groupthink theory is likely best understood as a flawed decision-making process. Janis’ (1982) work is considered the seminal work on the topic and details the antecedents, symptoms, and potential outcomes of the groupthink theory. According to Janis, three antecedents precede the existence of groupthink including highly cohesive groups, flawed structures within organizations, and certain situational realities. Janis categorized the eight symptoms of groupthink into three types including the group overestimating their own power and moral standing, the group’s close-mindedness relative to challenges and opposition, and the varying steps the group would take to apply pressure on its members to conform. Janis noted only the highly cohesive group antecedent was always present in a groupthink scenario and any number or combination of the symptoms might be present. All of the potential outcomes associated with groupthink, according to Janis, are manifested in bad decision practices including failures in planning, failures to consider options or risks, biases in research or information processing, and the like.

Groupthink has generally been studied using historical case studies in order to test the theory and chronicle the existence and accuracy of the aforementioned antecedents and symptoms. Most of these historical case studies blame groupthink for some serious disasters such as: (a) the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Watergate scandal (‘t Hart, 1991), (b) the Iraq war (Badie, 2010), (c) the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger accident (Hughes & White, 2010), (d) the 1996 Mount Everest climbing team disaster (Burnette et al., 2011), and others. Based on the work of Bell (2016), one could ultimately blame groupthink for contributing to the first-century trial, conviction, and execution of Jesus Christ by the Jewish Sanhedrin. The majority of these studies adequately chronicle the antecedents, symptoms, and flawed decisions occurring in each case but fail to offer much in terms of how to avoid groupthink. The majority of writers fall back on one of Janis’ (1982) original suggestions of assigning someone in the group the role of an official objector. That suggestion has merit for organizational leaders and group leaders who start from an objective viewpoint and can assign such an individual, but the suggestion fails to provide organizational followers and/or group members with any tools for overcoming groupthink at the individual level. The purpose of this chapter is to determine whether Nicodemus exhibited courageous followership and if that exhibition helped him as an individual to overcome the groupthink occurring in his group.

The Sanhedrin

In most respects, the group known as the Sanhedrin dominated the political, legal, social, and cultural aspects of first-century Jewish life. The sect of Pharisees dominated the Sanhedrin (deSilva, 2004) and focused heavily on a legalistic application of Torah law (Perrin et al., 2013). The Sanhedrin elevated themselves and their positioning within the Jewish community as a group set apart being adherents to the ultimate standards of ritual purity (Malina, 2001). As a result, the Sanhedrin retained fellowship with a select few—primarily themselves, and they disassociated themselves from most foreigners, common Jews, and the like. The Sanhedrin worked to consolidate power and authority, exhibit controlling influence, eliminate dissension, and institutionalize their distinct separation from the general Jewish population (deSilva, 2004). Bell (2016) has asserted that groupthink symptoms were demonstrated by the Sanhedrin in relation to their treatment of Christ. Additionally, Bell found five distinct groupthink symptoms demonstrated by the Sanhedrin including: (1) unquestioned belief in inherent group morality, (2) rationalizations of warnings, (3) self-censorship, (4) illusions of unanimity, and (5) direct pressure on dissenters to conform. These findings suggest that elements of the groupthink dynamic may have been present in the Sanhedrin group, at least in its engagement with Jesus. Part of Bell’s study briefly touched on Nicodemus’ role in the group and how some of his actions indicated his intention to “completely disassociate with the Sanhedrin group” (p. 35). Whether or not full groupthink was at play within the Sanhedrin in connection with its engagement with Christ, it is clear that strong opinions about Jesus made it dangerous for in-group Sanhedrin members to challenge the group’s conclusion about who and what Jesus was. Based on Bell’s research, there is room in research to determine how Nicodemus may have been able to overcome the strong voice of the mainstream perspective among the Sanhedrin as an in-group member. The present chapter serves to answer that call.

Three Views of Nicodemus in John’s Gospel

Nicodemus is present in three separate “scenes” within John’s gospel. First, Nicodemus is introduced in John 3:1–21 where he is identified as a Pharisee and a ruler of the Jews. In these verses, Nicodemus approaches Jesus under the cover of darkness. He conducts an interview of Jesus posing questions and being further confused by the answers. Second, Nicodemus is present in John 7:45–52 during an internal Jewish leadership discussion concerning the validity of Jesus’ claims and how Jesus’ followers were opposing Jewish law. Nicodemus questions the logic of the Jewish leadership in this instance and apparently does so alone. Third, Nicodemus assists Joseph of Arimathea in preparing Jesus’ body for burial after the crucifixion in John 19:38–42. On this occasion, Nicodemus provided a significant amount of the necessary spices to prepare the body according to Jewish burial customs and participated in the burial.

Scholars have long struggled to unravel the mystery of Nicodemus. Bassler (1989) describes this struggle as a “fascination for scholars” (p. 635) desiring to capture the essence of John’s Nicodemus. Farelly (2013) notes unraveling this mystery is challenging because Nicodemus is elusive and ambiguous at best. Indeed, the effort to understand Nicodemus extends back in time to at least the second century (Bassler, 1989). Although a variety of scholarly opinions exist, writings concerning Nicodemus can be loosely organized in three categories. These categories include Nicodemus as timidly seeking, Nicodemus as a secret convert, and Nicodemus as progressively distancing himself from the Jewish leadership. Each of these three views of Nicodemus is briefly explored for contextual and conceptual understanding.

The Timid Seeker

Those who view Nicodemus as timidly seeking, Jesus as Savior will note indications of this timidity in each of the three narratives where he appears. This view holds that fear of retribution from the Sanhedrin drove Nicodemus to timidly seek out Jesus at night, under the cover of darkness, where the possibility of being seen was minimized. While disagreeing with their position, Whitenton (2016) notes many scholars have held this view suggesting Nicodemus’s initial meeting with Jesus was conducted at night for the purpose of avoiding the potential malevolence of other members of the Sanhedrin. In this view, it is also the fear of his colleagues that dictates the defense of Jesus provided by Nicodemus when he appears in John’s gospel the second time. Bassler (1989) claims Nicodemus did certainly offer a defense of Jesus in this instance, but it was offered “rather tentatively” (p. 635). It is fear that again dominates the circumstances surrounding Nicodemus’ effort to assist Joseph of Arimathea in preparing and burying Jesus’ body. Bassler states when John mentioned Joseph’s secret discipleship as being attributed to “fear of the Jews” (p. 641), it is this fear which dominates the overall context of the burial scene. Hence, this “fear of the Jews” also applies to Nicodemus by what Bassler calls “clear association” (p. 641). Therefore, in this view, Nicodemus’ actions are continuously and heavily influenced by fear. This fear does not arbitrarily indicate some level of weakness in Nicodemus’ character. Many New Testament disciples certainly acted out of fear at times. However, fear as a primary motivating factor would certainly stand in contrast to an understanding of Nicodemus as a courageous follower.

The Secret Convert

Viewing Nicodemus as a secret convert is also a commonly held understanding of his role in the Gospel of John. In the secret convert view, clues are also evident in each scene where Nicodemus is involved. In this view, Nicodemus seeks Christ for his initial interview because he is already a believer. Deffinbaugh (2002) claims the secret conversion of Nicodemus occurred because he could not deny the evidence for Christ and was consumed by a personal conviction concerning Jesus’ divinity and mission. Additionally in this view, Nicodemus’ defense of Jesus would not have taken place had he not already been converted. Driscoll (1911) states it was the Sanhedrin’s accusation of Nicodemus’ new so-called Galilean characteristics that indicated Nicodemus had heard and embraced the truth of Jesus’ message. It is relatively hard, and needless, to dispute how Nicodemus was certainly a convert by the time he assisted in Jesus’ burial. Nicodemus’ secret conversion is again assumed in the burial scene because of his association with Joseph—who John notes is a secret disciple (Bassler, 1989). The fact that Nicodemus’ conversion seems apparent in the burial scene does not, however, automatically indicate this conversion was secretive in nature. A secret conversion at this point would contradict an understanding of Nicodemus as a courageous follower.

The Progressive Distancing

Some scholars and commentators hold the view that John is actually describing Nicodemus as progressively distancing himself from his colleagues. In this view, Nicodemus pulls further away from the Sanhedrin in each of the first two scenes and finally pulls free from them in the final scene. Ford (2013) claims Nicodemus might be best considered as one who initially was somewhat undecided whether or not to officially break with the Sanhedrin. Nicodemus appeared not satisfied with the Pharisees’ legalism and may have suspected Jesus was the Messiah leading him to visit Jesus for the initial interview. If the night interview was a first step away from Jewish law for Nicodemus, then his public challenge and criticism of the Sanhedrin’s application of the law to Jesus was quite a jump. Farelly (2013) describes this encounter as a public criticism of the Pharisees clearly showing Nicodemus was not “entirely ‘one of them’ anymore” (p. 39). In distancing himself, he essentially was simultaneously aligning himself with Jesus and other followers of the Way. After his initial step and jump away from the Pharisees, Nicodemus took one last monumental leap by assisting Joseph with the burial of Christ placing himself squarely on the side of the followers of Christ. Farelly notes this event as the “dramatic distancing” (p. 42) where Nicodemus aligns himself with Christ in the sight of both God and man. This view actually does not arbitrarily contradict the idea of Nicodemus as a courageous follower. In fact, some aspects of the third view may work in a complimentary or corroborating fashion to an understanding of Nicodemus as a courageous follower.

Table 10.1 demonstrates the three existing views of Nicodemus as found in the associated literature. None of the three existing views specifically addresses whether Nicodemus was engaged in a first-century exposition of the courageous follower model. The present study seeks to explore this potential as a more plausible explanation of Nicodemus while simultaneously determining the role of courageous followership in groupthink scenarios.

Table 10.1 Existing views of Nicodemus in John’s Gospel
Full size table

Followership

The concept of followership should be understood as distinct from but related to, intertwined with, or otherwise correlated to the leadership concept. Leadership might be defined as the use of influence, the casting of vision, the development of strategies, and the motivation of followers for the purpose of achieving commonly held objectives. Followership is the act of individuals who use their talents, skills, and abilities to work with leaders and other followers to accomplish the commonly held objectives. The concept of followership is reviewed in consideration of its historical aspects along with both bad followership and courageous followership.

Historical Aspects of Followership

In the related literature, the study of leadership has always dominated the study of followership, yet leadership has never occurred without followers. In their expansive review of the followership literature, Uhl-Bien et al. (2014) make the point clearly stating “it is now widely accepted that leadership cannot be fully understood without considering the role of followers in the leadership process” (p. 89). Uhl-Bien et al. traced the modern history of studying organizational followers to the scientific management literature of the early twentieth century which casts followers as intellectually inferior to leaders thus requiring the directives of management. Some of today’s leaders maintain the same mindset of intellectual superiority while some of today’s followers are content to allow their leader to think for them. Uhl-Bien et al. further traced the study of followers through the majority of the twentieth century noting those studies generally focused on how to improve subordinate productivity within companies. In that stream of literature, the term subordinate was a dominant way to reference non-managerial persons in organizations carrying with it many negative connotations.

Transitioning to the term follower and/or followership seems to have primarily occurred only in the last two decades of the twentieth century. Uhl-Bien et al. claimed “clearly the most cited early work on followership is that of Robert Kelley (1988)” (p. 90). Although some would claim the term follower is still indicative of lesser stature, the study of followership elevates the role of the organizational member far beyond the status of a mere subordinate. Kelley’s (1988, 1992) works are now often considered classics in the study of followership. Kelley (1988) presented a different conceptualization of the role of followers in organizations claiming that much of the success of an organization can be directly attributed to followers rather than leaders. Even today many leaders and followers fail to realize the true value of the organizational follower. Kelley (1988) claimed followership, whether good or bad, could best be understood as the net effect of two dimensions of follower behavior. Those two dimensions of follower behavior are active engagement, the opposite of passive involvement, and independent critical thinking, the opposite of dependent uncritical thinking (Kelly, 1988). In this two-dimension view, the actions and outcomes of the follower’s active engagement and independent critical thinking are generally assumed as positives, and the desire is for high levels of engagement coupled with high levels of critical thinking.

The behavioral dimensions of followership have remained a strong stream in the followership research. Chaleff (2009) also described two behavioral dimensions of followership including the amount of support given the leader by the follower and the willingness of the follower to challenge the leader. Chaleff claimed those two dimensions as critical in understanding courageous followership and developed four courageous follower typologies based on those behaviors. Chaleff also outlined seven aspects of courageous follower activities as part of his courageous follower model. Being a major element of this study, Chaleff’s courageous follower model is reviewed more thoroughly in a subsequent section.

Similar to both Kelley and Chaleff, Kellerman (2008) viewed followership as resulting from the unique behavior patterns of followers. However, Kellerman claimed only one behavior dimension would influence the follower’s followership . Kellerman stated followership results from a “single, simple metric…level of engagement” (p. 85). The level of engagement can be viewed as a spectrum ranging from zero effort/no commitment on one end to deep commitment/extreme effort on the other (Kellerman, 2008). Based on where an individual’s engagement level places them on that range, Kellerman then categorizes followers into one of five classifications: “Isolate, Bystander, Participant, Activist, [and] Diehard” (p. 85). The single dimension view of followership behavior may be the easiest for leaders and other followers to comprehend as it is quickly ascertained by observation.

Kellerman and Chaleff were not the first to present followers in categories. Kelley (1988, 1992) originally presented followership typologies based on the two aforementioned behavior dimensions of active engagement and independent critical thinking. Kelley (1992) claimed followers would combine the two behaviors in various ways in response to the leader’s actions and the context of the organization. The five typologies identified by Kelley (1992) are (1) the alienated (low engagement, high critical thinking), (2) the yes-people (high engagement, low critical thinking), (3) the sheep (low engagement, low critical thinking), (4) the pragmatics (lukewarm engagement, lukewarm critical thinking), and (5) the star followers (high engagement, high critical thinking). The five typologies contribute to an improved understanding of the follower role as having the potential to demonstrate strong, middle-of-the-road, or weak followership.

The contributions of Kelley, Kellerman, and Chaleff have been instrumental in advancing the overall understanding of the followership concept. Followership is now being studied in the contemporary context as part of the leadership process. Over the course of human history, people have been fascinated with leaders and leadership prompting a plethora of writings on great exemplars of leadership. Unfortunately, very little attention has been paid to great examples of followership. The present chapter serves to help fill that void.

Bad Followership

The historical development of the followership construct included allusions to followership types and/or behaviors that were less than positive in nature. Kelley’s (1988) conception of the two behavioral dimensions is explained by contrasting them with their negative counterparts. For example, one understands active engagement by considering passive involvement. Kellerman’s (2008) follower types, based on the one metric of active engagement, are presented as a spectrum where low engagement types are given names with negative connotations such as the Isolate or the Bystander. Kelley’s (1992) typologies have a similar recognition of follower classifications that are less than desirable. In fact, four of Kelley’s (1992) typologies are not positive as only the Star Follower demonstrates both strong engagement and high levels of critical thinking. All of those allusions to negative followership types are indicated by the various authors in order to present the positive followership type with the goal of helping followers improve their followership and assisting leaders in developing good followership tendencies among organizational members.

One stream of followership research moves beyond demonstrating the less than positive follower roles and points directly to the bad followership that is detrimental to leaders, followers, and organizations. Kellerman (2005) considered why some followers are willing to follow bad leaders and how bad followership is involved in bad leadership. Kellerman claims bad leaders and bad followers are either leading or following “because it is in their self-interest” (p. 42). Additionally, Kellerman claims these bad followers are pursuing and oftentimes achieving some need fulfillment in their following of the bad leader. In the book Bad Leadership, Kellerman developed a typology of bad leadership and included in her description how it “engaged both the leader and at least some followers” (p. 44). Additionally, Kellerman uses the same “the leader and at least some followers” phrase in six of the seven bad leadership typologies she presents. Thus, Kellerman furthered the notion that bad leadership cannot occur without some corresponding bad followership . If that is an accurate assessment of bad followership, there is certainly a great need to better understand positive followership exemplars.

Bad followership was a major focal point in Padilla et al. (2007) development of the toxic triangle model that attempts to explain the individual contributions of leaders, followers, and the situational context to a toxic organizational environment. Concerning the follower role, Padilla et al. claim their exploration was an attempt to answer the question “why are certain followers unable or unwilling to resist domineering and abusive leaders?” (p. 183). Padilla et al. categorize these bad followers as either conformers or colluders. Conformers are more passive in allowing the bad leadership as a result of their different vulnerabilities such as immaturity or unmet needs, whereas colluders are active in support of the bad leader because they see the opportunity to work with the destructive leader in a way that advances their own personal agenda (Padilla et al., 2007). If Padilla et al.’s categories are correct, both the conformers and colluders are demonstrating bad followership as neither is willing to take a bold stance against the destructive leadership environment.

The role of bad followership in toxic environments characterized by destructive leadership was the primary consideration of Thoroughgood et al.’s (2012) effort to expand the previous classification of conformers and colluders. Thoroughgood et al. developed the “taxonomy of vulnerable followers” (p. 897) that included the subtypes of conformers as lost souls, authoritarians, and bystanders and the subtypes of colluders as acolytes and opportunists. According to Thoroughgood et al., different forms of passivity characterize the lost souls, authoritarians, and bystanders such as lack of personal direction, the desire for exertion of legitimate power, or the motivation of fear. However, Thoroughgood et al. note the assertiveness of acolytes and opportunists is driven by dark personality traits, the willingness to form alliances for personal gain, or other self-interest that aligns with the destructive leader’s mission. One of Thoroughgood et al.’s overall observations is “no matter how clever or devious, leaders alone cannot achieve toxic results” (p. 901). Thus, bad followership seems to serve as a complimentary force to bad leadership. Following the stream of research conducted by Padilla et al. (2007) and Thoroughgood et al., Henderson (2015) developed the Toxic Followership Types Scale based on the conformers and colluders follower types. Henderson’s instrument was developed specifically to measure the two bad followership types. Although some subtle differences did exist, in the testing of the instrument, Henderson claimed to have found similar subtypes as Thoroughgood et al. had proposed. The development of a survey instrument by Henderson was an important continuance of the research stream and validation of these bad follower typologies as measurable constructs.

As has been explained by the previously mentioned research, bad followership is more than workplace apathy, poor job performance, or lack of organizational commitment. Although those followership actions are less than positive, truly bad followership corresponds with, actively supports, and/or is willingly ignorant of bad leadership. Leaders, including bad leaders, hold significant and various forms of power and influence in organizations. A good follower of a bad leader or group has a very challenging task—one where great amounts of courage are needed in order to successfully pursue the organization’s mission.

Courageous Followership

Chaleff originated the courageous follower model with the 1995 publication of The Courageous Follower. Chaleff has updated and revised the courageous follower model in second and third editions expanding the model from its original five dimensions by adding two new aspects. In the third edition, Chaleff (2009) introduced the Followership Styles Assessment, a survey that assists individuals in determining their current courageous follower style. Chaleff claimed the third edition is the culmination of his courageous followership journey.

Chaleff’s courageous followership journey appears to have been undertaken in order to answer a single but important question. Chaleff (2011) asks “should we stand up to and for our leaders?” (p. 19). Standing up for leaders has always been indicative of a personal loyalty to the leader. This type loyalty is highly valued by leaders. Standing up to leaders is indicative of loyalty to mission, to purpose, or to cause. Chaleff contends the latter loyalty supersedes the former in the hearts and minds of courageous followers. Chaleff noted the dual duties required of courageous followers as they must simultaneously support their leader while being willing to challenge the leader. It takes courage for followers to offer the brutal honesty leaders need because followers have too often been seasoned to just follow directions and not to offer much in terms of leadership assessment.

Chaleff (2016) noted the various styles that can be used to categorize the different courageous follower approaches. The use of follower typologies is helpful in making application of the concepts. Chaleff describes the two behaviors forming the basis of the typologies as “willingness to question or challenge the leader” and “support given to the leader” (p. 46). These two behaviors correspond well with the dual duties previously mentioned. The four courageous follower styles identified by Chaleff are (1) Resource (low challenge, low support), (2) Implementer (low challenge, high support), (3) Individualist (high challenge, low support), and (4) Partner (high challenge, high support). Chaleff noted how one’s follower style could change depending on the leadership type presented. It is also quite likely that one’s courageous follower style could change dependent on the situational context. The situational reality relative to the purpose pursued will influence both the leadership style and the followership style.

The courageous follower model is premised on the notion that both leaders and followers serve a common purpose (Chaleff, 2009). The service to common purpose is an important aspect of the model providing a foundation for its seven dimensions. The seven dimensions of the model as outlined in Chaleff’s third edition include the courage to assume responsibility, to serve, to challenge, to participate in transformation, to take moral action, to speak to hierarchy, and to listen to followers. Each of the seven courageous follower dimensions is detailed in the following sections as a deeper understanding of this model is necessary before making its application with the research subject.

The Courage to Assume Responsibility

Having the courage to assume responsibility involves the follower taking an ownership stake in the common purpose shared with the leader. Chaleff (2009) states courageous followers willingly accept and seek responsibility for both “themselves and the organization” (p. 6). Chaleff further claims these courageous followers operate with a sense of authority derived from their understanding of the common purpose and do not hold a paternalistic view of the leader. Because of the high value placed on the shared purpose, these followers will take action without specific direction from the leader. They do not fear consequences, nor do they require leaders to think for them. They do not see themselves working in opposition to their leaders. These followers will seek direction when needed but will not wait for direction when deemed unnecessary. Indeed, they understand their role as working in conjunction with the leader in order to accomplish goals and objectives associated with the common purpose.

The Courage to Serve

Courageous service involves a passionate willingness to do whatever it takes to aid the leader in accomplishing the common purpose. Chaleff (2009) claims courageous followers serve by engaging the hard work of supporting the leader through challenging tasks and tough decisions. They serve by offering complementary strengths which offset leader weaknesses while willingly unburdening the leader by taking on additional duties where necessary (Chaleff, 2009). The courage to serve is best understood as a dimension where the follower places the needs of the leader ahead of his or her own.

The Courage to Challenge

The courage to challenge one’s leader concerning issues of integrity, morality, ethics, effectiveness, or efficiency is demonstrated by a follower who values the common purpose more than he or she fears potential retribution. Chaleff (2009) describes this type of courage as the willingness “to stand up, to stand out, to risk rejection, [and] to initiate conflict” when the actions of the leader or the group require such examination (p. 7). These followers place high value on harmonious relationships but place a higher value on the shared purpose and personal integrity (Chaleff, 2009). An important aspect of this dimension, the value of integrity, is paramount in understanding the courage to challenge. This dimension is essentially focused on the courage needed to speak openly and honestly to those in power despite potential consequences. The courage to challenge does not necessitate conflict, but conflict often results when leaders do not value followers who challenge or have motives which contradict the shared purpose.

The Courage to Participate in Transformation

The participation in transformation involves the active participation in organizational change endeavors that so frequently characterize organizational life. Chaleff (2009) describes this as a courageous effort to “recognize the need for transformation” (p. 7) when the common purpose could be jeopardized without the change. Of course, recognition of the need for change is only the first step. According to Chaleff, these followers actively participate in the change, supporting the leader, and advocating for the change to others within the organization. The need for the courage to participate in transformation develops in today’s organizations from the rapidity and frequency of change and the corresponding increase in change-resistant behaviors that tend to stifle the success of organizational change.

The Courage to Take Moral Action

In one sense, the courage to take moral action is the ultimate step a follower can take when standing in firm support of the common purpose. According to Chaleff (2009), this form of courage is embodied by a follower who not only takes a stance opposing the leader’s position but does so by refusing or appealing direct orders and ultimately by resigning from the organization, if needed. This moral courage, according to Chaleff , involves significant personal risk, but true commitment and service to the shared purpose demand the risky action. Having the courage to take such action even when motivated by a sense of morality requires the conscious acknowledgment of the potential severity of the consequences. This aspect of courageous followership is primarily focused on follower reaction to leader stimuli. It is concerned with standing up for what is right, despite the extreme personal risk, as a reaction to a perceived wrong.

The Courage to Speak to the Hierarchy

Having the courage necessary to speak to the hierarchy involves some obvious challenges including the possible consequences of moving past the direct leader and the logistical challenge of being heard at a higher level where the follower is potentially not well known. Chaleff (2009) claims these challenges exist in many large organizations where actual decision-making power originates multiple layers up the chain of command. Because of the hierarchical distance between the follower and the decision-makers, followers are challenged to communicate effectively and must engage the other courageous follower principles but with contextual sensitivities and purposeful strategy (Chaleff, 2009). Persistence and relationship building would be two necessary behaviors for followers attempting to communicate at higher levels within a hierarchy. Perhaps the most important relationship would be with the follower’s direct leader as he or she could more easily create the opportunity to speak with the next highest level.

The Courage to Listen to Followers

The final dimension of Chaleff’s model is based on the understood premise that leaders and followers are roles which individuals fulfill depending on context. Virtually every leader is also a follower, and many followers are also leaders. Therefore, the courage to listen to followers is an activity that allows leaders to model the other courageous follower principles while reaping their benefits. Chaleff (2009) claims this courage is the responsibility of the leader in order to foster and respond productively to acts of courageous followership. Chaleff (2009) further notes this courage is more challenging than it appears but “offers powerful paybacks” (p. 8) for those involved, especially the leader. With such powerful benefits available, one would also expect the opposite is true—significant problems and organizational challenges will exist when leaders fail to listen. It is important to recognize the duality of this aspect of courageous followership because the leader’s integrity will be challenged if he or she acts as a courageous follower in the follower context but, when in the leader context, does not encourage his or her followers to act likewise.

Nicodemus’ Courageous Followership

As previously asserted by Bell (2016), Nicodemus was heavily involved in a group where groupthink may have been a persistent problem. The three existing views of Nicodemus’ role in the group do not indicate how he as an individual was able to overcome the potential groupthink. A deeper understanding of the social aspects and dimensions of the three passages, where John presents Nicodemus, is required to address the purpose of this study. The social intertexture method was used in analyzing the texts of John’s gospels involving Nicodemus. As such, the social intertexture method is briefly described followed by a detailed analysis of the three passages using the method. The analysis does ascertain whether Nicodemus was exercising courageous followership activities and whether those activities allowed him to overcome the Sanhedrin’s pervasive groupthink.

Social Intertexture Method

According to Robbins (1996b), intertexture analysis involves determining how the text represents, refers to, and considers events outside of the specific text, and those events can involve social codes, roles, and institutions. According to deSilva (2004), intertexture analysis involves more than just gathering the data regarding the use of worldly phenomena from outside the text because the method requires close examination of how the worldly phenomena are used and for what purpose. Intertexture has a wide range of applicability and offers significant insight. deSilva claims virtually every New Testament passage presents itself for the opportunity to be explored through intertextuality. Social intertexture, as a subtexture of intertexture, concerns the use or representation of differing forms of social knowledge—information known by every individual in a region due to frequent interaction with others in the region (Robbins, 1996b). Social intertexture is useful as an analytical tool and as a mechanism providing a richer and deeper understanding of a text.

Three important aspects of social intertexture involve its consideration of social roles, social institutions, and social codes. These aspects each contribute to the analysis of a social phenomenon but are not simply cultural in nature because they are understood by the entire society regardless of preference or participation (Robbins, 1996b). Robbins (1996b) explains how social codes focus on the conventional practices in certain social settings. Social roles are evident when certain identities are found indicating the individual’s purpose, position, or character. Robbins (1996a) cites numerous examples of social roles including chief priests, elders, scribes, murderers, king, Jews, and soldiers. Social institutions are those entities, constructs, or procedures that are set apart as authoritative, universal, and embedded. Examples of social institutions include the council, Roman soldiers, and the temple (Robbins, 1996a). For analytical purposes, the three aspects of social intertexture: social roles, social institutions, and social codes must be located within the selected texts and then systematically reviewed.

Social intertexture can be used to discover what the individuals of first-century Judaism would have understood when John writes that Nicodemus was a Pharisee and ruler of the Jews. Similarly, social intertexture can illuminate what role the law played in the Pharisee’s internal discussions and the importance of Nicodemus’ actions in assisting a fearful Joseph of Arimathea in conducting the burial customs. The analysis will provide clarity concerning Nicodemus’ role in the groupthink-plagued Sanhedrin and whether he overcame that groupthink by using a courageous follower approach.

John 3:1–21

The first twenty-one verses of chapter three in the Gospel of John contain the narrative introducing Nicodemus in the New Testament. In these verses, Nicodemus visits Jesus for the purpose of interviewing Him. The interview leaves Nicodemus quite perplexed at times as he does not appear to completely understand Jesus’ responses. Because of the interview, some of the most well-known statements of Jesus were recorded by John including the concept of being born again and, of course, John 3:16. John does not specifically address what motivated Nicodemus to make the visit and speak with Jesus. However, pure conjecture is also not necessary because Nicodemus’ motives are revealed with social intertexture analysis.

As previously mentioned, one critical element of social intertexture analysis includes the study of the social roles represented in the text. There are two prominent social roles mentioned in John 3:1. First, in John 3:1 (NASB), the author writes “Now there was a man of the Pharisees…” No explicit definition is given concerning what constitutes a Pharisee, and none was needed for the original audience. However, this is an important element concerning the character of Nicodemus. Pharisees were an especially prominent sect within Judaism during the first century (deSilva, 2004). Pharisees were considerably focused on Torah law and became rather distinct from other Jews by their erection of social boundaries (deSilva, 2004). As such, they were set apart not only as teachers but also by having dominion over the populous. deSilva (2004) refers to this social separation as indicated by the Pharisees’ “great authority among the people” (p. 83). Over the course of time, authority developed into the separation characteristic of a ruling class. The second social role noted in this verse involves this ruling-class characteristic as John describes Nicodemus not only as a man of the Pharisees but also as a “ruler of the Jews.” As a ruler of the Jews, Nicodemus held a position as member of the Sanhedrin who governed Israel (Harrison, 1946). Therefore, Nicodemus should be understood as a member of a very elite group of religious leaders who were set apart from the average Jew having deep religious convictions and substantial authority.

Viewing Nicodemus from that social role perspective leads to a clearer understanding of his motivations as a deeply religious follower. Although his position is one of authority, Nicodemus was not the chief priest and can, therefore, be accurately considered by his role as a follower. As a follower, Nicodemus shared a common purpose with his leader and his fellow followers. It is this common purpose that provides clarity concerning Nicodemus’ courageous follower attributes. Part of the shared purpose is demonstrated by, according to Harrison (1946), Nicodemus’ deep interest in any person or movement that carried significant influence as did that of Jesus. Another aspect of the shared purpose was the desire for discovery of the true Messiah who had been promised by God. Nicodemus would have certainly supported the discovery of the true Deliverer and would not prejudge Jesus only to find himself opposing the true Christ (Harrison, 1946). As a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, and a follower among the Sanhedrin, Nicodemus’ actions would have been bound by a desire to discover the true Messiah, and, as a result, he would have felt compelled to investigate influential movements within the Jewish state. Therefore, the interview with Jesus makes logical sense. Nicodemus was investigating a very influential movement for the purpose of determining whether or not this was the true Deliverer. This desire for discovery would not have separated Nicodemus from the purpose he shared with his leadership. Of course, the Sanhedrin leadership had prejudged Jesus and had done so in error. Nicodemus’ interview was certainly an act of courage. Nicodemus would not let his judgment be clouded but would instead seek the truth because the truth was what the Sanhedrin was actually supposed to be seeking.

When logically extending the understanding of Nicodemus’ social role, one quickly ascertains his commitment to the shared purpose. And, considering this logical extension in light of his interview with Jesus demonstrates significant courage on the part of Nicodemus. He had the courage to take upon himself the task of personally investigating this movement’s leader in order to determine whether He was the Messiah that all of Israel desired. The courage to assume responsibility is the first characteristic of a courageous follower (Chaleff , 2009). Courageous followers who assume responsibility willingly accept and seek out such responsibility and base their authority to do so on their conception of the common purpose (Chaleff, 2009). Nicodemus was fulfilling this role when he courageously sought Jesus, interviewed Him, and investigated His movement. Viewing Nicodemus’ actions in John 3 as those of a courageous follower contradicts many commonly held views but is logically based on a comprehensive understanding of his role in society and his organization coupled with the importance of the common purpose.

John 7:49–51

The events of John 7 involve divisions that occurred among the people and, eventually through Nicodemus, within the Sanhedrin. These divisions were a result of Jesus’ teachings. John 7:45–52 presents the narrative account of the Pharisees questioning the officers concerning why they had not seized Jesus and whether these officers had also been deceived. The Pharisees clearly indicated how the many followers of Christ had been led astray from the law and were cursed. As evidence for this straying away, the Pharisees made the claim that no one from their inner circle believed in Jesus. Nicodemus took verbal exception to the Pharisees’ self-serving application of the law. As a reward, Nicodemus received a stinging rebuke.

Another important element of social intertexture includes the reference of social institutions within the text. An important social institution is mentioned twice in John 7:49–51 and has conceptual relevance concerning the entire exchange among the Sanhedrin, the officers, and Nicodemus. In John 7:49, the Pharisees claim the crowd of Jesus’ followers is accursed because the crowd “does not know the Law.” In John 7:51, Nicodemus clearly challenges the leadership and his colleagues’ application of the law by stating “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” John’s original readers needed no explanation concerning his repeated reference to the law. They would have been quite familiar with law and would have clearly understood the dynamic as a result. Social institutions such as the Jewish law were widely understood by Jews and other groups in the area. Deffinbaugh (2002) notes Pharisee law viewed itself “as the pure remnant of Judaism” (p. 105) being not only the way into the kingdom but also the source of governance for daily life as regulated by Torah law and oral traditions concerning the law. deSilva (2004) further adds to the understanding of what constituted the law by noting the Pharisees endeavored to apply the whole of Torah law through various rules and regulations that governed many aspects of Jewish life including purity, tithing, and the Sabbath. Torah law served many purposes including the avoidance of and the atonement for sin as well as the application of justice. The law was revered as it was given directly to Moses by God Himself. Therefore, when Nicodemus challenged the Sanhedrin regarding their application of the law, it was not the law itself which Nicodemus challenged. Rather, he held the socialized institution of the law in a higher regard than he did his leader or fellow followers among the Sanhedrin.

Nicodemus’ act of verbally challenging the Sanhedrin was quite remarkable in consideration of the socialized institution of Jewish law—an institution where Nicodemus was certainly a participant. Nicodemus’ commitment to the law must be understood by considering his deeply held religious convictions and character. At this point, Nicodemus continues to be understood as a member or follower of a larger organization and still possessing a shared or common purpose. In this instance, the common purpose involved a strong support and commitment to the law. Nicodemus’ verbal challenge was a very risky action. According to Harrison (1946), Nicodemus was risking strong disapproval and scorn by challenging and contradicting the Sanhedrin. Bassler (1989) claims Nicodemus sought to challenge the hypocrisy he deemed evident rather than a mere concern “for correct legal procedure” (p. 640). Therefore, Nicodemus so revered the law and the Lawgiver that he would risk his own welfare for their sake. At this point, Nicodemus was surely aware of his leaders’ and fellow followers’ prejudgments of Jesus, and he was willing to take the risk to correct this injustice.

Motivated by commitment to the law, Nicodemus clearly challenged the Pharisees’ hypocritical application of the law. By doing so, he again demonstrated himself as a courageous follower. At this point, Nicodemus was still a Pharisee, ruler of the Jews, and member of the Sanhedrin. He acted alone concerned with issues of integrity, ethics, hypocrisy, and morality. This incident is characteristic of Chaleff’s (2009) third aspect of the courageous follower model where the follower demonstrates the courage to challenge. Chaleff describes this courageous follower aspect as the willingness to speak up, risk rejection, and initiate conflict concerning matters of integrity or matters that negatively impact the shared purpose. Nicodemus certainly fulfilled this role by speaking up independently in defense of the law’s moral imperatives. He did this with an understanding of the potential consequences but did it despite those consequences as he understood the greater importance of the common purpose.

John 19:39–40

The nineteenth chapter of John is his recounting of the scourging, crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus. In John 19:38–42, the narrative focuses on Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus’ effort to prepare and entomb the body of Christ. John tells his readers how Joseph was already a disciple of Christ but was one in secret. Joseph requests the body from Pilate and receives permission to take it away. Nicodemus helps with the burial preparation by providing an abundance of the necessary spices, and together he and Joseph wrap the body and place it in a new garden tomb.

The important element of social intertexture present within this text involves the social codes that are alluded to by John. Jewish social code regarding burial practices is present within the text in two distinct instances. First, in John 19:39, Nicodemus enters the narrative, and we are told he came “bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes…” Second, in John 19:40, Joseph and Nicodemus together took the body and “bound it in linen wrappings with the spices…” which John notes was “the burial custom of the Jews.” These verses highlight the important social code relevant to the Jewish burial customs. These traditions could be quite complex depending on mode of death, condition of the body, and length of time since death had occurred (Lavoie et al., 1982). However, these traditions always addressed issues of body cleansing, the anointing of the body with spices, and the proper linens and methods for wrapping the deceased (Lavoie et al., 1982). Although John did not mention the washing, Lavoie et al. claim that, based on these verses in John, the body was buried according to Jewish code. Joseph and Nicodemus obviously did not accept the Pharisees’ rejection of Jesus and would not accept a burial that would have shamed the Jewish Man and His family. Therefore, they took it upon themselves to ensure a Jewish burial code was adhered to in the case of Jesus.

The fact that Nicodemus wanted to ensure Jesus received a traditional Jewish burial is a clear indication that he had taken a moral stand in opposition to the Jewish leadership. The fact that John introduces Nicodemus again as the one “who had come to Him by night” should not be misunderstood as anything other than identification. Harrison (1946) mentions how this was a “circumstantial note” (pp. 51–52) and should not raise alarms concerning Nicodemus’ motives but is better understood as a way of identifying that this was the same Nicodemus John had previously mentioned. As such, Nicodemus again demonstrates his courage and willingness to act despite the potential costs. We are never told of the consequences that Nicodemus suffered as a result of this action. However, his actions were a clear departure from the desires of the Jewish leadership who would not have honored Jesus by adhering to the social codes governing burial practices. It is, therefore, quite likely that Nicodemus ended his affiliation with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin either in conjunction with this action or as a direct result. However the separation may have occurred, Nicodemus had the courage to take action.

The significance of Nicodemus’ efforts to uphold the Jewish social codes concerning burial customs relative to Jesus should not be minimized. It is this action that demonstrates Nicodemus’ courage and his stance opposing the Jewish leadership. He had clearly left the organization because he took this moral stand. As described by Chaleff (2009), the courage to take moral action is the fifth attribute of a courageous follower. Chaleff describes this courage as involving a follower who refuses or appeals orders and will ultimately resign from the organization over issues of integrity, morality, or ethics. Further, Chaleff notes how the courage to take moral action involves significant personal risk, but courageous followers value the common purpose more than they fear the personal risk involved. Clearly, Nicodemus demonstrated the courage to take moral action and also demonstrated his commitment to the common purpose. He had found the Deliverer and could do no less than honor Him at this point by ensuring Him a traditional Jewish burial. Nicodemus had the courage to disassociate himself from the Sanhedrin and clearly aligned himself with the other followers of Christ.

Analysis Summation

Social intertexture analysis of John 3:1, 7:49–51, and 19:39–40 provides substantial information regarding the important social roles, institutions, and codes which are present in those texts. Social roles including the Pharisees and rulers of the Jews, the social institution of the Jewish law, and the important social codes surrounding Jewish burial customs are all integrally linked to Nicodemus’ character, actions, and motivations concerning the common purpose shared by Nicodemus with his leaders and fellow followers. Nicodemus understood the purposes of the Sanhedrin as including seeking out the promised Deliverer, justly upholding Jewish law, and ultimately honoring the Messiah. In each of the three passages from John, it is those common purposes which drove Nicodemus’ actions and words. He clearly demonstrates courageous follower attributes by having the courage to assume responsibility, challenge, and to take moral action. Understanding Nicodemus as a courageous follower is a departure from common understandings of this mysterious New Testament character. Through social intertexture analysis, however, the true Nicodemus is revealed as an exemplar of courageous followership. Chaleff (2009) is clear concerning how courageous followershipis motivated by the follower’s deep commitment to the shared or common organizational purpose and mission. It is this shared or common purpose that plays an integral role in understanding Nicodemus as a courageous follower. Chaleff does not indicate that all seven dimensions of courageous followership must be present for a courageous follower to exist. As previously indicated, three aspects of the courageous follower model are applicable to the scenarios involving Nicodemus. Table 10.2 presents the three courageous follower dimensions demonstrated by Nicodemus: (1) the courage to assume responsibility, (2) the courage to challenge, and (3) the courage to take moral action along with a brief overview of Nicodemus’s corresponding action.

Table 10.2 Nicodemus’ courageous followership
Full size table

Discussion

The purpose of this chapter was to determine, using a qualitative approach with a historical subject, whether courageous followership actions are useful for individuals in overcoming the groupthink present in their group. Several notable conclusions derived from the study, both directly and indirectly, are discussed. It is not enough to simply identify organizational ailments without also identifying potential antidotes. Thus, several recommendations are provided for followers, leaders, and groups in general. This endeavor has produced significant results but, as with most studies, has also produced new questions concerning the intersection of followership, leadership, and group dynamics. As such, several future research opportunities are noted.

Conclusions Derived

Several direct conclusions are derived from the study. First, Nicodemus is found as having conclusively demonstrated the attributes of a courageous follower. To be clear, Nicodemus is recognized as a courageous follower for two specific reasons—demonstrating a strong commitment to common purpose coupled with clear demonstration of at least three dimensions of courageous followership. This finding is significant as it provides a historical exemplar of courageous followership. The finding is also significant in that it presents a new view and a new way of understanding one of the New Testament’s most mysterious characters. Second, courageous followership is found to be an effective method for overcoming groupthink at the individual level. Previous methods for overcoming groupthink have merit but have focused on top-down methods such as the leader recusing him/herself from contribution to group discussion until the later stages of a decision-making process or the leader’s installation of a so-called devil’s advocate who has the specific purpose of offering alternative viewpoints. Courageous followership, as a method for overcoming groupthink at the individual level, is certainly more of a bottom-up approach. This finding is significant because it provides a mechanism whereby followers within groups can break free from the bondage of the groupthink. It is also important to note this finding is specified as a mechanism for overcoming groupthink at the individual level and is not necessarily effective at the group level. Third, courageous followership although effective at the individual level will not necessarily prevent the group from pursuing some group-level initiated tragedy. It is a matter of historical fact that the Jewish leadership of the first century, overwhelmed with severe groupthink, was directly involved in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Even the Roman governor of Judaea at the time, Pontius Pilate, is well known for ordering the death of Jesus not because he found Him guilty of a crime but simply to pacify the complaining Jews. Any reasonable individual would recognize the execution of an innocent person as an important tragedy. This finding is significant because the courageous follower, although breaking free from the groupthink himself or herself, may not be able to stop the tragedies that often accompany groups plagued by groupthink.

At least two indirect conclusions appear to be discernible from the present study. To be clear, these conclusions are noted as indirect, meaning they may be presumed relevant based on close proximity to the historical events and the direct findings of the study. First, courageous followership may be a lonely enterprise for the courageous follower. Nicodemus as the courageous follower exemplar is presented thrice in John’s gospel and in none of those instances is he accompanied by a robust group of other courageous followers. Nicodemus came alone to the initial meeting with Jesus. He alone spoke in defense of Jesus in the Sanhedrin meeting. Only one other individual was involved in the burial of Jesus. Courageous followers should consider the reality that their courageous acts may not be initially met with vast support from other group members. Second, courageous followership may eventually be contagious and may spread to other persons associated with the organization. In reviewing the historical record, no direct links can be made between Nicodemus’ courageous follower behaviors and the courageous behaviors of future Sanhedrin group members. However, the record does show examples of other Jewish leaders abandoning the groupthink of the Sanhedrin. In Acts 5:34–39, Gamaliel alone gave advice to the Council to abandon their intentions to execute the Apostles whom they had arrested. Later in Acts 15:5, information is provided indicating there was a “sect of the Pharisees who had believed” in Jesus and had converted to Christianity. It is possible that acts of courageous followership, although a lonesome endeavor initially, may serve as a form of leadership where the exemplar persuades others to follow based on his or her example. Courageous followership appears to attract followers.

Recommendations for Leaders, Followers, and Groups

Viewing Nicodemus’ courageous followership activity and considering the various conclusions one can derive from the present study leads to the development of several recommendations. Inquiries such as the present study have obvious value in social science research, but such value is enhanced when ideas are gleaned for practical application in contemporary organizations. The following recommendations are suggested in that vein—practical and immediate application for organizational leaders, followers, and groups.

Recommendations for Leaders

Three significant recommendations are offered for individuals in leadership positions. First, the leader must actively engage in his or her leadership context rather than demonstrating passive involvement. Leaders in senior leadership roles who demonstrate a laissez-faire approach are likely to allow the existence of middle and lower-level organizational leaders who are immature or poisonous to effective followership. Passive leaders who allow juvenile leaders and toxic leaders to persist undisturbed are likely to squelch effective followership in the organization while the organization may become infected with a system-wide toxicity. Second, the leader must create and work to maintain a culture conducive to courageous followership. Leaders must promote an atmosphere where effective and courageous followership is not only permitted but pursued. The leaders should use the normal organizational culture mediums of direct communication, placement of artifacts, creation of rituals, and the like but must specifically create reward systems that promote effective followership while frequently addressing followership issues. Organizational culture is inevitably a function of what the leader pays attention to and what the leader rewards. Third, leaders must implement a recurring assessment strategy whereby levels of courageous followership are frequently evaluated. A comprehensive followership evaluation strategy would include a 360 ° evaluation process whereby followers’ levels of effective followership are measured by other followers, leaders, team members, customers, other stakeholders, and the like. Effective followers are likely to value a peer-review process as much or more than the traditional top-down performance appraisal process. A followership auditing process involving an outside entity could also be implemented by organizational leaders. Much like the company’s finances are subject to a periodic audit from an outside accounting firm, executive leaders could periodically bring in followership experts from outside the organization to assess the followership health of the organization from an objective viewpoint.

Recommendations for Followers

Four meaningful recommendations are provided for individuals in followership positions. First, followers should shift their paradigm to a mental state where they recognize their own value and contribution to the organization. Most organizational followers do not know how “research suggests that followers contribute an average of 80% to the success of an organization” (Koonce et al., 2016, p. xv). Followers should not become prideful and arrogant relative to their worth to the organization no more than their leadership counterparts should. However, followers too often believe they are just another number, another warm body, or another strong back. Followers must change their thinking in this regard and realize their role is important and what they do in the organization really does matter. Second, followers should commit to the organization’s mission in order to fully support the common purpose. Followers cannot commit to the mission or the common purpose they share with their leader and other followers without knowing, understanding, and believing in the mission. Effective followers will demonstrate loyalty to mission above loyalty to leader or other followers. Third, followers should follow by example through demonstrating courageous and effective follower attributes. Obviously, to follow by example is to reiterate the cliché statement “lead by example” but to do so by assigning importance to the act of following while preserving the value of being an exemplar. Effective follower exemplars will demonstrate effective followership authentically—with integrity and the value of prima facie credibility. When following by example, courageous followers understand they are role-modeling effective followership behaviors in view of other followers and organizational leaders. Fourth, followers must develop a certain psychological armor protecting themselves mentally for the potential hazard and backlashes often experienced by courageous followers. It is a difficult suggestion to offer, but courageous followers must be mentally prepared for negative consequences. Courageous followers must be mentally prepared to be the target of unscrupulous acts, to be alone in standing for what is right, and to be strong for their family and friends who may suffer as a result of their courageous acts. A strong mental preparedness for potential undesired outcomes is the best defense a courageous follower has against those possible realities.

Recommendations for Groups

Two notable recommendations are suggested for groups involved in group-level activities. First, groups should engage in a concerted effort directed toward the internal policing of negative group behaviors. Groups should be concerned with whether the group is working in concert with the organization’s mission or is working for the desires of the group. Internal policing can be problematic unless specifically assigned to certain members of the group. Once the group agrees to processes and procedures that are designed to reach objectives related to the organization’s mission, the group should create a mission or purpose taskforce of members who are entrusted with frequent assessment of group activities. Second, groups should engage in courageous collaboration—a group-level application of the courageous follower model. Courageous collaboration would include group behaviors reminiscent of the courageous follower behavior. Courageous collaboration would involve group behaviors directed both internally to the group and externally to other stakeholders. Courageous collaboration would ensure attitudes of service and of a group ownership mentality, the desire for high moral and ethical standards, the willingness to challenge each other and transform as needed, and the ability to listen to parties with a vested interest. In most instances, the desire is that groups will mesh and transform into a team mindset. Courageous collaboration, in applying the courageous follower model to the group dynamic, surpasses the team mindset and would intrinsically include safety mechanisms to prevent group dysfunctions such as groupthink.

It is both important and interesting to understand how the application of courageous followership is not simply limited to followers. The execution of courageous followership is applicable to leaders and groups as well. A summary of the recommendations mentioned for leaders, followers, and groups is provided in Table 10.3. At each level, certain specific action items have been noted along with a summary description.

Table 10.3 Courageous followership application action items
Full size table

Future Research Opportunities

Various future research opportunities exist based on the results and limits of the present study. These future research streams include additional investigation related to groupthink and continued examination of the courageous followership model. As related to groupthink, the present work indicates how courageous followership may help individuals within groups overcome groupthink. Thus, the present work presents a possible individual level solution to groupthink used by an in-group member. At least two areas of focus should stem from this finding. First, some replication of this study should be conducted to further validate these findings. Additional research could indicate whether other historical cases of groups immersed in groupthink and individual members who overcame the groupthink are available for study. The groupthink phenomenon lends itself to study from a historical view, but additional research with the courageous follower model and groupthink should be conducted with contemporary human subjects. Second, because the present chapter focuses on an in-group member, additional research should be conducted to determine whether groupthink can be corrected by some mechanism used by persons outside the group. Such research could reveal whether any of a group’s stakeholders, except in-group members, have any power or influence over a group suffering from groupthink. This research might offer a groupthink solution for concerned parties from outside the group, and, again, historical cases are useful subjects of study for such an investigation.

Continued examination of the courageous follower model is needed in order to continue to hone its applicability within contemporary organizations. As a result of the present study, at least four areas of potential research related to the courageous follower are indicated. First, there is a need to understand how the courageous followership model can be applied at a group level. The model itself is intrinsically focused on the development of an individual follower. The term Courageous Collaboration is tentatively offered as a means to reference the potential application of the courageous follower model within the collaborative context of a group. If a courageous collaboration model is to be developed, much conceptual research is needed to determine exactly how or if each of the seven courageous follower dimensions is applied in the group context and whether additional dimensions would need inclusion in the model. The idea of a courageous collaboration offers significant research potential. Second, research is needed to help understand whether the courageous follower model is the potential antidote to bad followership behaviors. Bad followership types and behaviors are identified in much of the literature as some application or combination of low engagement, low independent thinking, the tendency to conform, or the tendency to collude. Research could reveal whether persons equipped with bad followership tendencies could be retooled using the courageous follower model. It is not enough to simply identify the bad followership tendencies among some followers. A research need exists to help practitioners move bad followership into good or possibly courageous followership. Third, research is needed to provide a better understanding of how effective followership and/or courageous followership is impacted by dysfunctional, juvenile, or toxic leadership. As mentioned, followership is underrepresented in the literature, but the negative forms of leadership are also significantly underrepresented. As a result, little is known about the intersection of followership and poor leadership. Research in this vein could indicate whether followers are able to practice effective and/or courageous followership in an environment dominated by a toxic leader. Fourth, applied research should be conducted for the purpose of developing an organizational follower training program where members learn the courageous follower model and how to use the appropriate courage and when that courage should be manifested in action. It is not enough to simply encourage followers to be more courageous in the workplace or in their interactions with leaders. Followers need help in developing the practical skill and discernment for superior application of the courageous follower model. Although gaining some traction in the research literature, followership in general lags far behind leadership in empirical study whether in qualitative or quantitative form. Specifically advancing the research surrounding the courageous follower model would improve understanding of the model’s application while simultaneously helping to bridge the gap between leadership and followership as related to levels of empirical research.

Chapter Take-Aways

There are five important takeaways worth noting from this chapter. First, Nicodemus can be understood as a courageous follower whose primary goal was in pursuit of his organization’s original mission. Second, courageous followership can be understood as a mechanism for overcoming groupthink tendencies at the individual level. Third, senior organizational leaders should eliminate toxic behaviors among junior leaders, create a followership culture, and frequently assess those efforts. Fourth, organizational members (followers) must embrace their value to the organization, commit to the mission, provide an example of effective followership, and implement mental defenses against effective followership hazards. Fifth, groups within organizations should courageously work together and establish internal policing processes to deter negative group behaviors. Ultimately, this chapter demonstrates Nicodemus as an example of a courageous follower who conquered groupthink so that he could truly follow in the footsteps of Jesus.

Reflective Questions

  • How might you experience groupthink differently when in the leader role as compared with when you are in the follower role?

  • As an organizational leader, how could you go about creating organizational environments that encourage effective and courageous followership?

  • As an organizational member, how do you work with your organizational leader instead of working for that leader?

  • As a member of a group within an organization, what would be an effective method for deterring negative group behavior?

  • Why are some organizational leaders afraid to encourage effective followership, and why are some followers fearful to implement the courageous follower model?