Outcomes of a global survey conducted by the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO 2010) of air navigation service providers (ANSPs) acknowledged the existence of explicit safety and culture barriers. For example, information not shared with management, because of lack of trust, exhibited a limitation. Instances of punitive actions serve as evidence of a cultural barrier. The above mentioned facts are attributed to leaders who exhibit egotistical, autocratic or domineering management styles. In contrast, it may be contended that within a highly regulated situation, it is anticipated that leadership behaviours should likely encourage follower actions, especially when compliance with strict rules is expected. Consequently, leadership behaviours may well support and encourage such rule-based conduct. Incongruity in this case possibly exists, whereby current leadership behaviours may not necessarily contribute to compliance expectations and activities. It is thus postulated that a thorough appreciation of prevailing leader qualities and performances can probably be found in encounters, observations and thoughts disclosed by followers. These reports may recognise and critically describe leadership behaviours that influence followership. Accordingly, an expressive follower-emphasised study was warranted so as to find and uncover noticeable leadership behaviours. This study was conducted within a safety-conscious, highly regulated and technology-driven industry (aviation industry), a safety-critical sector (air navigation services) and a specific safety setting, namely, an air traffic and navigation services provider.

When considering studies conducted by Avolio, Walumbwa and Weber (2009), Whitener (2001), Kellerman (2007) and Yukl (2005), it can be argued that leader qualities and behaviours can be examined from, amongst others, an organisational, leadership or a follower perspective. Leadership theories and paradigms tend to focus on leaders’ reports on leadership (Kellerman 2007; Shamir & Howell 1999; Vroom & Jago 1988). Studies have accentuated leaders as if they were completely separate from those they lead, while followers have tended to be acknowledged as an undifferentiated constituent (Boezeman & Ellemers 2008; Collinson 2006; Riggio, Chaleff & Lipman Biumen 2008). This reported misconception may advance an argument for the important role that followers play in the leader–follower relationship and organisational performance (Boccialetti 1995; Chaleff 1995; Kellerman 2008; Kelley 1992).

Leadership encompasses social interactions between leaders and followers. Emotional awareness and regulation influence the quality of these interactions and relationships (Hill & Lineback 2011; Hur 2008; Ibarra & Barbulescu 2010; Madera & Smith 2009; Wong & Law 2002). Howell and Haii-Merenda (1999) explain that in leadership research, an affiliation of some sort between leader and follower is anticipated. Also, it is further proposed that the type and value of this relationship are critical when associating leader behaviour and follower response. Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) found that within current management research, the social exchange theory has been afforded the most attention, especially in terms of workplace relationships. Social exchange theory acknowledges that specific workplace antecedents lead to interpersonal connections – denoted as social exchange relationships (Cropanzano et al. 2001). Consequently, individuals regulate their interactions with other individuals based on a self-interest consideration of the efforts and benefits of such engagements (Brown & Mitchell 2010). People thus develop attitudes towards other people and things in the context of estimated personal benefits and costs to result from such encounters (Brown & Trevino 2006). In addition, Whitener (2001) has found that research imbedded in social exchange theory has revealed that employees’ obligation to the organisation stems from their perceptions of the employers’ commitment to and support of them (Eisenberger, Fasolo & Davis-LaMastro 1990; Hutchison & Garstka 1996; Settoon, Bennett & Liden 1996; Wayne, Shore & Liden 1997).

A study that postulates leadership and followership as interrelated events requires a methodological focus on interactions, connections, dependences and exchanges when investigating specific encounters, matters or situations (Castro, Perinan & Bueno 2008; Ilies, Morgeson & Nahrgang 2005; Kupers 2007; McCann, Langford & Rawlings 2006; Mushonga & Torrance 2008; Wood 2005). These inferred associations can also be explained as psychological contracts that refer to an individual’s system of beliefs grounded in commitments articulated or implied (Rousseau 2010). Leaders play a prominent role in the creation of the views followers have of leadership (Gray & Densten 2007). These views can be underlined with reference to the history of leadership theories as mapped by Baicher (2005) being:

1920s: Emergence of trait model (Great man theories).

Knowledge of the leadership–followership subject advocates that research in leadership studies leans towards centring the leader as the main point and principal element of the leader–follower relationship, mindful that such focus is really from the leader’s perspective (Den Hartog & Belschak 2012; Hollander 1992a, 1992b; Kellerman 2004; Kirchhubel 2010; Lord & Brown 2004; Mayo & Pastor 2007; Shamir 2007; Wang et al. 2014; Yukl 2005). Because followers are exposed to a leader’s style and actions, they are positioned to evaluate its effects on the leader–follower relationship (Castro et al. 2008; Hollander 1995; Kirchhubel 2010; Van Vugt 2006).The previously mentioned thus draws attention to a follower perspective. Identifying and exploring explicit follower views that are synonymous with both inspirational and unfavourable leadership behaviours depend on responses and testimonies from followers regarding these behaviours. Hence, follower accounts, remarks, descriptions, incidents, clarifications, structured responses and perceptions served as data essential for this study.

Leadership traits and behaviours highlight social interactions and emotional filters contained by leader–follower relationships. Moreover, leaders and followers (individually and collectively) delineate leadership and followership from diverse perspectives. However, leadership is understood as a complex set of behaviours found within a specific setting that directs conduct. A leader’s actions can inspire commitment or alienate followers (Banutu-Gomez 2004). Organisational progress and performance may be restrained by paltry leadership (Morris, Ely & Frei 2011). This study attempted to investigate reported experiences and expectations of followers with regard to leadership behaviour qualities within an ANSP. Both inspirational and discouraging leadership experiences and styles were probed. Because of this exclusive and limited focus on followers, a one-way causality in the research design was followed.

Followership has been hailed as an understudied subject in the academic literature and viewed as an underappreciated topic amongst practitioners (Bjugstad et al. 2006). Avolio et al. (2009) found that one of the most interesting omissions in theory and research on leadership is the lack of discussions pertaining to followership and its impact on leadership. Although it has always been important, the study of followership has now become even more important and noteworthy with the advent of the information age as well as vast changes in the workplace (Bjugstad et al. 2006; Shamir 2007; Stetz, Stetz & Bliese 2006). Bjugstad et al. (2006) describe followership as the capability to effectively follow instructions, while also supporting the efforts of a leader in pursuit of organisational success. Followership schemas develop through socialisation and previous experiences with both leaders and other followers (Hogg 2001). These are kept in memory and actuated when followers interact with leaders or other followers (Hogg 2001). In terms of followership, the responses selected and employed by followers based on experiences and expectations of leadership behaviours and followership deserved investigation. It was accepted that follower responses can provide content-specific and context-specific information that can be used for organisational purposes, such as leadership development initiatives. Furthermore, acquiring insight into influences that shape followers’ sentiments and beliefs can aid understanding of followers’ cognitive frameworks and contemplative practices. The mentioned cognitive frameworks are based on the assumption that individuals reason by trying to envisage the possibilities compatible with what they know or believe (Johnson-Laird 2013).

As a point of departure, it was accepted that one’s past experiences are likely to influence one’s current and future views. In lieu of this statement, it was recognised that follower experiences can be presented as personal, noteworthy or meaningful encounters, steered by reflective thoughts. As a result, leadership behaviours and qualities endured can influence followers’ mental models and subsequently encourage critical appraisals of leadership. Mental model data can consist of ephemeral discernments or thoughts, as well as long-term knowledge and beliefs, and such data are accessible by means of introspection (Johnson-Laird 2013; Knauff et al. 2013). As a result, follower expectations can be based on predictions and existing beliefs. Consequently, the researchers depended on follower insights to comprehend and appreciate followers’ epistemological and ontological views of leadership (limited to a specific context). It was contemplated that these insights could be valuable to appraise leadership training and development theory.

The research problem emerged as a result of the research gap in the academic literature on follower behaviour.

It is articulated as follows: follower experiences and expectations of leadership behaviours have not been effusively amassed, scrutinised, understood, structured and utilised to further aid leadership development. It is imperative that it can now be done within a safety-critical commercial environment to support the realisation of this environment’s goals and objectives.

The research problem was addressed through the answering of the following research questions:

Question1: How do followers within an ANSP describe leadership behaviour qualities in terms of the impact of these behaviour qualities?

The remainder of this article highlights the research design, analysis, findings and discussion. The research design is presented inclusive of the research approach, paradigm and strategy and method. The research findings furnish the quantitative and qualitative insights as well as the triangulated results. Links with the research questions are offered in the discussion of the findings, including recommendations and suggestions for future research.

Mixed methods research is useful when a need arises to answer questions that cannot be addressed by qualitative or quantitative approaches alone (Creswell 2003; Greene, Caracelli & Graham 1989). Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) add that a mixed method inquiry considers induction (or discovery of patterns), deduction (testing theories and hypotheses) and abduction (uncovering and presenting the best of a set of explanations for understanding one’s results). Mixed methods research integrates aspects from both qualitative and quantitative paradigms to deliver converging findings in the context of intricate research questions. Yin (2011) adds that mixed methods research offers an option that incorporates the similarities and dissimilarities in qualitative and quantitative methods. Accordingly, the researchers introduced and followed a mixed methods research approach that facilitated and integrated both qualitative and quantitative investigations.

Following deliberation, an ethnographic research case study strategy was preferred. Because an ethnographic interview requires respectful listening (Heyl 2001), the desired deeper descriptions were more viable. This necessitated listening for shifts in verbal variation, inconsistencies, topics avoided and hesitations. Furthermore, the contextual orientation needed to be understood from an organisational viewpoint. This decision thus required a context-specific research focus and boundary, which lead to the use of a supportive case study. It was accepted that a case is an empirical inquiry that studies a current phenomenon within its real-life context and is typically used when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not apparent (Kohlbacher 2005; Walshe et al. 2004; Yin 2003). Yin (2003) adds that the typical need for case studies arises out of the aspiration to understand complex social phenomena. In this research, the apparent goal of the case study was to reveal patterns, find meanings, construct inferences and build theory (Kohlbacher 2005; Noor 2008; Patton & Appelbaum 2003). The case study method allowed the researchers to follow an all-inclusive and meaningful trail of actual events as experienced and presented by followers.

Triangulation results signified consistency. Data and method triangulation were effected. In support of data triangulation, evidence from multiple empirical sources was used to cross-check information. Each portion of the evidence was assessed by associating it with other kinds of evidence on the same issue. In support of method triangulation, the evidence was assessed by collecting other evidence on those sources, using different research methods (e.g. by using questionnaires and interviews). The first phase of data and method triangulation relied upon external codifier feedback, member-checking comments, individual interview data and data from individual interview field notes. In this case, consistencies were found in an individual interview and individual interview field note–derived categories. The second phase of triangulation considered external codifier feedback, member-checking comments, focus group interview data and data from focus group interview field notes. Again, consistencies were apparent. The third phase of triangulation depended on external codifier feedback, member-checking comments, all focus group interview data and all individual interview data. In this case, leader and leadership descriptive experiences as well as follower needs and concerns received different portrayals; however, consistencies were noted in terms of desired and undesired qualities.

The final phase of triangulation considered the Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire data, all focus group interview data and all individual interview data. Of interest was that although the theme remained similar, differences were noted in terms of detailed focal points. Differences were found in terms of leader traits, leader behaviours, leadership styles as well as follower characteristics. However, these also provided impetus for convergence. These differences were considered as diverse perspectives that were related to an integrated study of context-bound leadership. The researchers, therefore, considered these integrative outcomes as a valuable contribution to this study.

The quality of data had to illustrate compliance with aspects of autonomy, beneficence and justice (Orb, Eisenhauer & Wynaden 2000). Evidence in support of autonomy can be traced to informed notice and consent received from the ANSP and participants. Beneficence was achieved by not revealing the participants’ identities. Justice was evident from descriptions detailing the vulnerability of the participants and their contributions to the study. The rights of human subjects were also protected by, for example, not affecting emotional harm, and not encroaching on their rights to maintain self-respect and human dignity. Moreover, data were collected, examined and stated by providing all information without misrepresentation, not consciously ascribing greater confidence than the measurements warranted and recording contradictory evidence.

The internal validity of Wilson’s (2004) EDLTI and the EDLBI was established by an expert panel. An expert panel review aimed at strengthening the content validity of the Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire suggested negligible changes, which were included in the final Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire. Construct validity of the Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire was traced to the literature review with reference to a synopsis of leader trait and behaviour groups that resulted. Maxwell’s (2009) seven-point checklist for validity in qualitative research was used. Compliance subsequently becomes apparent in terms of the concentrated long-term involvement in the research setting, comprehensive data collection, confirming respondent validation, reporting discrepant evidence and negative cases, triangulation, use of different data sources, use of quasi-statistics and comparing results across different settings and groups within a specific context.

Reliability in terms of qualitative research was facilitated by ensuring that all interview questions were derived from the literature review, distinct interview modus operandi were consistently applied, adhering to sampling criteria, guaranteeing confidentiality and ensuring ethical compliance. Furthermore, inter-coder reliability (Kohlbacher 2005; Mayring 2003) was confirmed by an external codifier. A Cronbach’s alpha was used to confirm internal consistency and to determine good inter-item correlation of the Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire (Table 6). The Leader Trait and Behaviour Questionnaire had good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reported above 0.7. Arrangements to confirm reliability were also consciously consolidated and strengthened during triangulation.

Designated trustworthiness schemes complied with Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) and Krefting’s (1991) recommendations to take account of triangulation, member-checking and to demonstrate a logical association between research questions, research procedures, raw data and outcomes. Furthermore, a similar format, sequence and questions for each participant were used. Also, thorough descriptions of participants, the sample drawn, data collection procedures and detailed transcripts of information collected were offered.

As a limitation of this study, it should be noted that leadership was excluded. Research findings and contextualising of results are only pertinent to this study. Therefore, generalisation outside of this context is not inferred. It is accepted that different data collection strategies and different research methods could be used to promote understanding of this topic. Finally, different researchers may or may not support all the findings when reanalysing the collected data.

Future inquiry aimed at determining the necessity to educate followers to be able to critically appreciate and evaluate leadership performance may be valuable. Also, a greater understanding of how followers’ mental models internally represent complex, dynamic systems and how these representations change over time may also serve as a theme for future research. Resulting research results may assist leadership training and development specialists to develop or improve leadership training and development.