Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 | Page 68

Could a loyal subordinate have convinced Icarus to
heed his father’s warning and fly at a safe level?
Subordinates must try to prevent their leaders from
making wrong or unethical decisions that will cause
them to fail. Effective and courageous followers will use
professional dissent to challenge their leaders’ poor decisions. By understanding dynamic followership, military
organizations can treat followership like a discipline
and improve leader-follower culture.

U.S. Air Force photo

Army Senior Leader Issues

Icarus statue at the National Museum of the United States Air
Force in Dayton, Ohio.

D

anny Miller coined the phrase Icarus
paradox to describe how having a competitive advantage and superiority status can
lead to an unforeseen failure of organizations and
individuals that do not maintain situational awareness.1 Miller argues that people and organizations
get caught in a vicious circle whereby “their victories
and strengths so often seduce them into the excesses
that cause their downfall.”2
Miller describes how Icarus, according to Greek
mythology, flew with a great pair of artificial wings
made from wax and feathers by his father. Ignoring
his father’s warning, he tried to fly close to the sun.
As he neared the sun, his wings melted, causing him
to fall to his death. The story of Icarus demonstrates
that power and an overinflated sense of self-importance can blind people and organizations to their
weaknesses and ultimately lead to their downfall.
66

Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army
Leadership, describes a leadership and followership
framework by saying that, “Effective organizations depend on the competence of respectful leaders and loyal
followers. … Learning to be a good leader also needs to be
associated with learning to be a good follower—learning
loyalty, subordination, respect for superiors, and even
when and how to lodge candid disagreement.”3 This statement emphasizes that everyone serves on a team as either
a leader or a subordinate, and effective teams develop
mutual trust and respect, recognize existing talents, and
willingly contribute for the common good of the organization. Unfortunately, several senior-level Army officers
who were on the fast-track to the top organizational jobs
have violated the Army’s and the Nation’s trust. They
failed in their careers by engaging in unethical or immoral
behavior such as gross abuse of power, bigamy, extreme
toxic leadership, and criminal acts.
These officers serve as fitting examples of the Icarus
paradox: their successes as military officers led them to
believe they were above reproach—a weakness that led
to their downfall. The challenge for our Army is correcting our moral compass and eliminating this type of
behavior to maintain the trust of the American people.
Army leadership cannot allow moral decrepitude
to impair the profession. Senior leaders are exploring
new methods and strategies to help all Army leaders recognize vulnerabilities and prevent missteps in
order to maintain public respect and trust.4 The U.S.
Army achieves credibility and legitimacy as a profession through trust from our society. Army Doctrine
Reference Publication (ADRP) 1, The Army Profession,
states, “Professions earn and maintain their clients’ trust
through effective and ethical application of expertise
on behalf of the society they serve. Society determines
whether the profession has earned the status of a noble
September-October 2014  MILITARY REVIEW