Question

Case Study 12.3: Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal

1. How would you describe the followership at Penn State? Whom would you identify as the followers? Who are the leaders?

2. Using Kelley's typology, how would you describe the follower styles for Schultz and Curley? What about McQueary?

3. How did followers in this case act in ways that contribute to the power of destructive leaders and their goals? What was the debilitating impact their actions had on the organizations?

4. Based on Lipman-Blumen's psychological factors that contribute to harmful leadership, explain why those who could have repotted Sandushy's behaviors chose not to.

5. Based on the outcome, where did Paterno's intentions go wrong? In what ways could followers have changed the moral climate at Penn State?

6. In the end, who carries the burden of responsibility regarding the failure of Paterno's program---the leaders or the followers? Defend your answer.

Answer 1

Question 1. How would you describe the followership at Penn State? Whom would you identify as the followers? Who are the leaders?

Answer 1:

The Pen State leaders were destructive and toxic leaders and the followers were submissive. Followership at Penn State was that the followers were submissive and unintentionally supported the toxic leaders.

Followers were the following:

a. Penn State Janitors, coworkers and supervisor. Despite of witnessing the sexual abuse they got submissive and due to the fear of losing their jobs they kept silent.

b. Mike McQueary : who notified the leader but failed any appropriate support.

Leaders in Penn State Scandal were:

a. School Preside, Graham Spanier

b. Vice President, Gary Schultz

c. Athletic Director, Tim Curley

Question 2. Using Kelley's typology, how would you describe the follower styles for Schultz and Curley? What about McQueary?

Answer 2:

According to Kelley’s Typology, the follower style of Schultz and Curley at Penn State are passive followers or sheep. These are the individuals who look solely at the direction of the leader.

And, McQueary was a Pragmatic follower. He dealt with the situation sensibly and in a realistic manner by informing appropriate seniors and having meetings with them. But, he was not supported by his poor leadership.

Question 3. How did followers in this case act in ways that contribute to the power of destructive leaders and their goals? What was the debilitating impact their actions had on the organizations?

Answer: These followers acted in a very submissive way despite of witnessing the sexual abuse instances in the school premises by Jerry Sandusky being a coach. However, they tried to inform the leadership of the abuse but were not having any strong evidences to prove their allegation on Mr. Sandusky.

Moreover, the fear of losing jobs and poor leadership responses demotivated them towards following up with the complaints.

Debilitating impact their actions had on the organization was, that as and when the other coworkers got to know any instance of sexual abuse of the coach. They also kept silent and did not have the courage to inform the senior management.

Question 4. Based on Lipman-Blumen's psychological factors that contribute to harmful leadership, explain why those who could have reported Sandusky's behaviors chose not to.

Answer 4:

The Lipman-Blumen’s psychological factors that contribute to harmful leadership are as follows:

a. The followers value the wrong leadership qualities: They think that the strong and confident leaders are good, but often confuse it with arrogant leaders.

b. The followers equate effectiveness with being a good leader: Irrespective of how they have moved towards results or if they moved morally.

c. The followers crave power: Even if a leader is bad for everyone, but if he promises power to followers they start following them.

d. The followers do not hold leaders accountable, even if they do wrong.

e. The followers rationalize easily, instead of holding the leaders accountable.

All the above mentioned factors lead to a harmful and bad leader because having this kind of followers psychology they thing they are moving in the right direction.

Those who could have reported sandusky’s behavior opted not to report based on Lipman-Blumen’s psychological factors, due to the following reasons:

1. Poor leadership: who did not take required actions on the reported matter and acted very confidentaly.

2. Toxic leadership: the leaders did not support the complaints and thoughts of the complainants. And the followers did not hold the leadership responsible for it.

3. Follower's felt as if the leaders are above the rules.

4. Follower’s submissive approach and thought process.

5. Fear of losing job: the followers kept silent after a while due to fear of losing their jobs.