Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 | Page 73

IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWERSHIP

military institution just as it is in political organizations
and labor unions, where an elite group runs the organization while the premise of equal opportunity and
merit is merely window dressing for the organizational culture and society.21 Perhaps this sense of elitism
allows some senior officers to justify unethical conduct
and encourages a lack of intervention on the part of
their followers—any pretense of ethical behavior and
morality is merely window dressing.

Conclusion: Effective and
Courageous Followers
If Icarus’ assistant knew the wings would melt from
the heat of the sun, why did he not try to dissuade
Icarus from attempting to fly toward it? If a leader
is heading down a wrong or unethical path, then the
subordinate follower’s duty is to step in and prevent
that action. Effective and courageous followers will use
professional dissent to challenge their leaders’ decisions.

By understanding dynamic followership, military organizations can treat followership like a discipline and
improve leader-follower cultures. Through education,
soldiers and officers can learn how to be effective and
courageous followers as well as good leaders, potentially
preventing future unethical decisions.
In a cultural change, many retired Army officers are
now addressing senior-leader ethical issues as problems
of needing followership dissent. In his presentation at
the International Leadership Association annual
conference in Denver on 25 October 2012, Dr. George
Reed described leadership through an ethical lens,
where “well-meaning followers face conflicting loyalties
as they balance their own sense of right and wrong with
desires of leaders and the best interest of the organizations they ultimately s erve” This statement suggests
.22
responsible subordinates must find a method to
candidly voice their concerns to their bosses for the
good of the organization.

Notes
1. Danny Miller, “The Icarus Paradox: How Exceptional Companies Bring About Their Own Downfall,” Business Horizons, ( January-February, 1992): 24-35.
2. Ibid., 24.
3. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], 1
August 2012), 2.
4. Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 1, The Army
Profession (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 14 June 2013), 1-2 http://
armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_a/pdf/adrp1.pdf.
5. Ibid., 1-2.
6. Ibid., 1-5.
7. General William Tecumsah Sherman, quoted in Master
Sgt. Gary Hinkelman, “Followership: Rules One Can Lead by,”
commentary posted on the Sheppard Air Force Base website, 16 June 2006, http://www.sheppard.af.mil/news/story.
asp?storyID=123031408.
8. Lt. Col. Sharon M. Latour and Lt. Col. Vicki J. Rast, “Dynamic
Followership: The Prerequisite for Effective Leadership,” Air and
Space Power Journal, 18(4)(Winter 2004): 102-110.
9. Ibid., 102.
10. Ibid., 103.
11. James McGregor Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper &

MILITARY REVIEW  September-October 2014

Row Publishers, 1978), 2.
12. Robert Earl Kelley, The Power of Followership: How to
Create Leaders People Want to Follow, and Followers Who Lead
Themselves (New York: Doubleday/Currency, 1992).
13. Ibid., 92.
14. Ibid.
15. Ira Chaleff, The Courageous Follower: Standing Up To and
For Our Leaders, 3rd ed. (San Fransisco, CA: Brett-Koehler Publisher, 2009), 47.
16. Ira Chaleff, “No Need for Whistleblowing,” Executive
Excellence (February 2004), http://www.courageousfollower.net/
wp-content/uploads/No-Need-for-Whistleblowing.pdf.
17. Ibid., xi.
18. Ibid., 45.
19. Mark E. Cantrell, “The Doctrine of Dissent” Marine Corps
Gazette, 82(11)(November 1998), 56-57.
20. Gareth Morgan, Images of Organizations (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2006).
21. Ibid., 296.
22. George Reed, The Ethics of Followership and Expression of
Loyal Dissent, paper presented at the International Leadership
Association Annual Conference in Denver, CO, 2012, 22 http://
george-reed.com/uploads/3/1/5/2/3152787/cv_january_reed.doc.

71