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