Question One
Penn State’s followership is passive. In passive followership, followers present their grievances to ther leaders, who in return make decisions solemnly (Essa & Alattari, 2019). Upon making decisions, the leaders give directives to their followers who dare challenge or question the instituted directives (Essa & Alattari, 2019). In Penny State, parents, students, faculty, athletes, footballers, staff, fans, and school administrators vividly exhibit passive followership behaviors. For example, Penny State’s football head coach, Paterno, reported Sandusky to the State officials, Schultz and Curley, who decided to protect Sandusky by failing to report him to the police. Instead of Paterno questioning Schultz and Curley’s decision to protect Sandusky, he chooses to remain silent. Notably, in Penny State, football administrators, namely coach and assistant coaches, students, staff, athletes, fans, and parents, are the followers. At the same time, the state officials, court officials, and the state police department are leaders.
Question Two
Based on Kelley’s typology, Schultz and Curley’s follower styles are eliminated, while McQueary’s follower style is exemplary. According to Kelley, people whose follower styles are delineated fail to be subjective to other leaders with higher ranks (Forgo, 2022). Because of limited followership style, Schultz and Curley, former Penny State officials, failed to report Sandusky to the State Attorney even after McQueary, former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach, informed them about his sexually abusive behavior. Compared to the delineated followership style, people using exemplary followership styles proceeds to challenge and report leaders whose traits are questioning (Forgo, 2022). Therefore, guided by exemplary followership style, McQueary quickly reported Sandusky, upon knowing he sexually abused kids, to Paterno, who then reported him to Schultz and Curley.
Question Three
Penny State’s followers contributed to ther power of destructive leaders and their goals in the following ways. First, they unthinkingly obeyed the decisions made by destructive leaders who leveraged their blindness to pass lenient verdicts to culprits of sexual abuse. Second, the followers failed to challenge the decisions made by their destructive leaders because of fear of reprisal penalties, such as job termination. For example, due to job loss fear, a janitor at Lasch Football failed to file a report confirming that he witnessed Sandusky sexually abusing a boy. Due to blind obedience and reprisal fear, the followers’ detriment their organizations’ reputation and values. For example, the Penn State football organization was fined $ 60 million and suspended from competing in the postseason for four years.
Question Four
Fear of retribution and cognitive dissonance are Lipman-Blumen’s psychological factors that explain why specific people failed to report Sandusky’s sexually abusive behavior. Due to retribution fear that makes people feel their actions will make them endangered (Çoban, 2022), the Lasch football’ janitor failed to file a witness report to the State Attorney due to cognitive dissonance that makes people feel discomfort when their actions contradict their beliefs (Çoban, 2022), former Penn State officials Schultz and Curley choose to protect Sandusky explicitly to protect Penny State’s good reputation.
Question Five
Paterno’s intentions to conceal Sandusky’s scandal was a bad decision. After he reported Sandusky to Penn State officials Schultz and Curley, he failed to take up follower up measures. Worse, as Penn State football’s head coach, he continued allowing Sandusky to coach the Penn State Nittany Lions football team. Also, he failed to directly report Sandusky to Pennsylvania State Police even after knowing Schultz and Curley’s lack of concern. Notably, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley could have protected Penn State’s good reputation if they had aggressively reported Sandusky to the authority.
Question Six
Ultimately, the followers carried the responsibility burden following Paterno’s program failure to report Sandusky. The parents and Penn State football officials, Paterno and McQueary, will leave to blame for their actions since a three years investigation discovered that Sandusky sexually abused at least seven students. Compared to parents, Paterno and McQueary carry a heavy responsibility burden since they directly tolerate Sandusky’s sexually abusive behavior, thus causing their firing. These followers carry the responsibility burden since, as senior adults had the conscious to report Sandusky’s sexually abusive behavior quickly.
References
Çoban, C. (2022). The dark side of leadership: A conceptual assessment of toxic leadership. Business Economics and Management Research Journal, 5(1), 50–61. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/bemarej/issue/68880/996336
Essa, E. B., & Alattari, A. (2019). The relationship between followership styles and leadership styles. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 4(2), 407-449. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/real/issue/50186/646061
Forgo, E. E. (2022). Addressing Follower Motivation Within the Kelley Typology of Followership Using Significance Quest Theory. Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. https://www.proquest.com/openview/2251b21f7aca5cd82c2e2876eb362d88/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
write