I
We speak a lot of the art of leadership and of leaders. It is important that we do so. Inspiration based upon precept and example is a vital factor in the development of new generations of capable leaders. True leadership ability is the essential catalyst, to be sought out and nurtured carefully. But it neither exists nor functions in a vacuum. In and of itself, leadership is not enough!
History records in detail those acts of leadership which have distinguished the performer. Less clear is the record of the follower. This much is certain: To say only that such-and-such a mission succeeded or failed because of leadership alone might easily be to say less than the truth.
Few people realize it, but the Navy functions at all levels with a high reliance on individual moral courage. Close analysis of the conditions of naval service will show that an officer or man most often makes his own choice between the minimum and the above average in the performance of his duty. Even an exacting superior is readily lulled into acceptance of the appearance of excellence. The onus, you see, can fall heavily on the follower.
We have a clear concept of the good leader. We need an equally clear concept of the good follower.
II
A study of leadership soon brings us to two basic considerations, sometimes overlooked. These are: one, you can’t lead if you won’t follow; and, two, a leader needs someone to lead. Unless and until there is an intelligent leader-follower relationship, willingly effected, the leader himself is handicapped.
There are three basic types of people in the Navy: leaders, followers, and what we might call “riders.” There is an unfortunate tendency to lump follower and rider together and accept mere passive membership as sufficient. This is wrong. Leadership is hamstrung by the riders and foot-draggers. It’s the follower who strengthens leadership. Development of the good follower is a task for selection and training, a task for indoctrination, and above all a task for individual dedication.
There’s an art to following. And, as there is a catalog of leadership qualities, so too might we develop a list of “followership” qualities. Simply, these would be derived from a close examination of desirable leadership characteristics. Let’s pursue the point further.
Any work on leadership has its list of principles. Those following are typical, though not given in any order of importance.
The good leader
has thorough knowledge of his job
has thorough knowledge of his men
has the ability to inspire
is loyal
has initiative
is impartial
has the ability to delegate authority
has the ability to make decisions
has concern for the welfare of his men.
There are more factors carried on some lists, of course; fewer on others. These nine will serve the purpose of brief discussion, in order to spotlight the concept of “good follower.”
It is axiomatic that the leader must know his job if he is to have the respect of his men. But what of the follower? Should we not require him also to know his job? Should he not be required to understand the relation of his part to the whole? It is not enough that a man be capable of pulling a lever of pushing a button only. The how without the why produces automatons. A good follower is no automaton.
The leader is enjoined to know his men through the use of psychology, observation, and skill in human relations. The requirement for the good follower is to acquaint himself in the same manner with the aims, personalities, and idiosyncrasies of his leaders and shipmates. In such knowledge is his strength, for he also begins to understand himself.
The ability to inspire is a subtle qualification, requiring that the leader be able to make his men want to do something, want to follow him, want to succeed for him. The follower, in his turn, must have the capacity to be inspired! Think about it. It rules out cynicism and selfishness. It means a capacity for belief in leadership which should exist before the leader makes a move; before, if need be, the leader is even known. An early requirement is an open mind. Time enough for disillusionment, if any, without contriving it beforehand.
The good leader is loyal to his service and to his men. The follower also owes a positive loyalty to his duty, his superiors, and his contemporaries. Not just a lip-service, but a bare-knuckled conviction that “this is my team—right or wrong—but my team.” This isn’t slavish devotion, but a plain feeling that the benefit of every doubt belongs on the side of his superiors. It’s the kind of loyalty that keeps a man out of common gripe sessions. It means no destructive criticism, while not eliminating honest, constructive comment.
Initiative at the leader level means the courage to take independent action when it is clearly within his province to do so. It is in this area of self-reliant enterprise that the good follower can really excel. Often more readily than his superiors, he can see what needs to be done. He sees things which only he can improve upon—and which if he does not act, might never be accomplished. In other words, he’s on his own where the initiation of action is concerned and it can make the greatest difference in the quality of work he puts out.
Impartiality for the leader might better be called a reasoned partiality, considering mission first and all else next. Development of this same reasoned partiality is important for the good follower. He often has to make the decision in the case of duty versus self. His reasoned partiality must require the correct response to the demands of duty as well as common sense in his judgement of his superiors and his service.
If a man in a position of leadership is unable to delegate authority, then he is no leader. He betrays a lack of confidence in himself as well as in his subordinates. The follower appears on the other side of the coin. He needs the capacity for willing acceptance of delegated authority and responsibility. Implicit in this is an entire complex of attitudes and abilities. We’ve seen the man who only grudgingly accepts a position of responsibility. He does his work hurriedly and is only too happy to relinquish his burden and return to a faceless anonymity. This man will be a poor leadership risk when his turn comes. The good follower prepares for and readily accepts delegated authority and responsibility.
The ability to make decisions is an important leadership quality. This is so because leadership is by definition decisiveness. The good follower plays a complementing role. Of him is required the ability to accept decisions. This means obedience to the choice made by authority. Not blind obedience, but the willing kind based upon the knowledge and belief that there can be only one captain on a team. If he has been consulted in a decision, or if he has not, the good follower’s duty clearly lies in willing acceptance.
A concern of the good leader is the welfare of his men. He endeavors to provide them with the ultimate in physical and mental well-being, insofar as it lies within his power and the scope of his mission to do so. Responsibility of the good follower is as great. He must place his personal concern for his own welfare in the background. He has to realize the limitations that necessity and the facts of naval life place upon provision for personal welfare. This requires that he limit severely his demands and those of his shipmates. As the good leader is solicitous, so must the good follower be understanding.
A summary will provide this list of the characteristics of a good follower.
The good follower
knows his job and its place in the larger picture
knows his leaders and his peers has the capacity for inspiration is loyal
has initiative—a self-reliant enterprise
has a reasoned partiality
readily accepts and is prepared for delegated authority and responsibility
affirmatively accepts the decisions of authority and does his best to implement them
is fully aware of the essential limitations on personal welfare, and does not add to the leadership burden by unreasonable expectations.
Looked at in this light the concept of the good follower has meaning, distinctly separate from that of only passive membership in the Navy. The good follower has responsibilities to live up to. Failure to do so can bring the best of leadership to a futile end. If it is the task of leadership to create good followers it is no less the task of followership to stand as the bulwark of leadership. One without the other is like an arm without a hand.
With leadership goes authority. With authority goes accountability. This is the inescapable law of command. But how much easier the wielding of authority; how much less harsh the accounting if command is strengthened by positive followership.
III
When we look at a military organization from below we see a pyramid of leadership. Looked at from above, it’s an expanding base of followership. The accent till now has been on the upward look. Sooner or later we must look around us and downward: realizing that for every commanding officer there are many department heads; for every department head, many division officers; and for every division officer, many petty officers and their subordinates.
This means that some of us—a great majority—are going to be followers. We can have leadership responsibilities as well, but always and ever we are concerned with implementing the policy of our superiors and fitting ourselves into the scheme of things. We are concerned with standards of performance and efficiency: to match our superior’s where possible, to exceed them when necessary. In one way or another we must meet fully the criteria imposed by the principles of good followership.
There was a stimulating article in a recent issue of the Proceedings.1 The Admiral wrote of the declining quality of professional Navy-men—officers and enlisted alike. As he pointed out, part of the problem is in the lack of good human material. But he wrote also of pride and respect; and in a sharply etched word portrait showed us the Navy of thirty years ago.
The things which made naval service worthwhile then are no less valid today. Devotion to duty—self-respect, if you will—is just as important as it ever was. And whatever else is missing today, we must accept also the fact that a portion of the problem is in the lack of good followership.
Any issue of most periodicals devoted to things Navy will furnish evidence of a growing attitude away from the concept of the good follower. Letters to the editor (as well as joe-pot talk) reveal that the prima donna complex is with us in full measure. But even officers and men who base their fretfulness on a portion of the truth rarely hew to the line. Their complaining of things generally wrong gradually peters out into a recital of specific things they didn’t get; and by a sort of post hoc, ergo propter hoc the whole naval service gets the blame.
I have read a series of letters devoted to the proposition that the Navy considers its enlisted men not quite human. This is “proven” by the fact that the Navy holds reveille and taps; the Navy has masters-at- arms; the Navy requires proper uniform; the Navy holds personnel inspection; and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Other men decry the loss of “that intangible quality of individuality.” These unhappy fellows see thought control for those “selling their birthright of freedom” for a service career. Only people content with a vegetable existence, they say, remain in the service.
Still others offer the interesting thought that collective bargaining by the rank and file would be a big improvement over the present chain of command.
These examples are not frivolities on my part, nor are they isolated cases. I have read many more like them and have spoken with individuals who espoused similar points of view. It has been encouraging to find replies from the other side of the argument. They have been many and thoughtful; and unlike most of the fault-finding type, not anonymous.
But I’m not trying to answer the complaints of such people. My effort is to probe deeper because it seems to me the trouble lies deeper. These complaints are symptoms indicating a lack of something essential in the philosophy of service. That something is a real awareness of the duties and responsibilities of followership. Spoken or written, such complaints have a uniformity of tone and emphasis which say clearly “I was cheated.” Somewhere along the line these folks got the idea that they were hopping on a gravy train, or else that Navy life really is the way Hollywood presents it. In short, these folks still have something to learn.
Such an analysis does not for one moment deny the worth of honest complaints, based on fact, and bringing with them sensible recommendations for improvement.
The Navy—and any other military arm— exists for one purpose only: the execution of national policy in combat when, as, and if necessary. The Navy is not and cannot be engaged in any program which controverts that purpose. This means discipline and training all the time. Without them, and the resulting esprit, no military service is worth its salt and even our unhappy non-followers should know it.
Discipline comes in many packages. One package the United States Navy has never employed is that of harshness to and submergence of the individual. Quite the contrary—the whole history of the Navy as well as its organization today shows that the individual is the heart of it. It is only on individual perfection that outstanding teamwork can be built. The old saw of the chain being no stronger than its weakest link was never more true than here. It is to produce the best individual that greater concern is given to health, education and training, comfort and recreation than ever before in any navy in the history of the world. That this effort is directed toward making a better teamworker is to be expected and is no great price for the individual to pay. And within the team the essential relationship of leader- follower needs to be recognized, accepted, and maintained. There’s no time for collective bargaining in combat.
Not long ago I saw a filmed version of Admiral Carney’s speech on “The Importance of Personal Leadership Today.” He rightly underscored the need for each naval officer to show in himself by precept and example those qualities needed to inspire. Implicit therein was the thought that the best leaders are those who work at leadership all the time. Leadership is not a sometime thing, and 99 44/100 per cent pure is not good enough. If this is true for the leader, how much more true must it be for the follower? He is the leader of tomorrow if he’s good enough to step up. Yet, all the good examples in the world are not enough unless he can find it within himself to profit from them. Leadership begins in followershipl
Have I put myself in the position of claiming that one part of the circumference of a circle is different from and more important than another? I hope not, because it’s not that simple. What is apparent is the need for more people to show in themselves those qualities of subordination and devotion to duty which are at the very heart of the military structure.
IV
The art of the follower is a difficult art. It is as demanding in its various forms as is the art of leadership. But unlike Topsy, followers don’t “just grow”. The ability to follow is a refinement of character. This refinement is the result of a channeling and motivation which clearly demonstrate to the individual that what or whom he follows justifies the effort. Basic to this is the will to succeed. A man either wants to do what he can to keep the ball bouncing or he doesn’t. It’s a simple and straight-forward requirement. The follower has to be imbued with this desire. His early training should work in that direction. His whole career should reflect it.
There are some who will say that such a philosophy leads only to utter and numb subordination. They miss the point. We all aim to excel, but we must walk before we can run. Navy-wise we take our first steps as followers. We occupy a definite place in the network of operation. If we can’t fill the bill at that stage—and in each succeeding stage—how can we hope to be responsible leaders when our day comes? This is truly the highest individualism: to see ourselves and our duty so clearly that we can place one before the other and do well the job we’re assigned to do. An automaton can’t do it; nor can an utter and numb subordinate.
We don’t have to go to the lessons of history for proof, though they surely help to illustrate the point. Looking around us we can see leaders and followers—and others. Men who can sincerely blame a military service for musters and inspections and uniforms have some soul-searching to do. What’s more, the service itself has to ask where it failed in their indoctrination.
The Navy asks no more than it pays for. It rewards in full measure those who meet its exacting standards. The catch is that the reward seems somehow insignificant to those who don’t know the standards and have not met them. The yardstick they use is wrong. They don’t measure in terms of duty well done, traditions made, or promotions earned. Applied, instead, is a yardstick they wouldn’t dream of using in a civilian enterprise. They ask before they give. They grapple with shadows.
The question today is what has become of the spirit of service which so distinguished the Navy of yesterday? Why is it that now, in a period of higher pay and greater concern for the individual sailor than ever before, we do not find more apparent satisfaction, better pay outside, loss of military prestige, and similar consideration. These points cannot be minimized, but they don’t explain everything by a long shot. Underneath it all, what do the officers and men of the Navy expect? What have they been shown is reasonable to expect? And what do they understand is expected of them in return? Finally, do they seriously plan to get more out than they put in?
The only ones who can answer such questions are the individuals themselves. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the Navy, if criticize it one must, but it should be on rational terms—along with a good, fighting effort to do a job before tossing in the sponge. Gripers are a dime a dozen. We can use some followers.
Let’s look at some facts. If we’re not satisfied with the Navy, we’re not satisfied with our own performance in it, somehow. I don’t mean smugness and complacency. Far from it! But the consciousness of a job well done is an important part of a man’s adjustment to his position; and it’s pointless to excoriate the position without looking at the incumbent. The Navy does not change by some magic process. It’s you, and me, and the admirals and the recruits who improve or not, because we’re the Navy. Boiled down to its bare essentials it requires that we do our jobs—our individual jobs—as thoroughly and as willingly as we know how. In short, we need to develop a spirit of good followership. It’s our responsibility, and by so doing we shape the Navy and our careers into something to be proud of.
Consider the question of career in its relation to good followership. The reservist has no naval career in the usual sense. Regardless of his personal desire there will come that day of separation from active duty. He is, therefore, impermanent in a very real sense as part of the active duty picture. Impermanent also are those others who clearly plan to spend the minimum possible time as regulars. But need it be the case that they cannot become good leaders or good followers, simply because of their impermanence? I don’t think so. A man has a full-time career as a human being. If he reneges in one part of that career, it’s going to poison the rest. The temporary nature of a person’s service cannot be a reason for his offering less or the Navy’s expecting less in whatever billet he fills. Why should it be, if he will supply the energy and initiative—the good followership—needed to learn his job?
Until all of us—reserve and regular alike— know our jobs, ourselves, and our leaders; until we are willing to be inspired and to give loyalty upward and downward; until we exercise a constructive initiative; until we learn a reasoned partiality; until we can willingly accept delegated authority and the decisions of our superiors; and until we can readily subordinate our personal welfare to that of the service, we just are not followers and the Navy is the lesser for it. And without that kind of followership there can ultimately be no leadership.
Truly, leadership is not enough. Our Navy’s progress must involve the energies of all—leader and follower alike. Though it’s clearly true that we can’t all be leaders, I would ask: How many of us fully realize that we might not be good followers either? How do we stack up against the criteria of good followership? Do we know that every growl, every sniping comment on the skipper’s motives or methods only proves our unfitness as followers and weakens the strength of leadership? Someday soon we have to learn that the man who would be a good Chief has to want first to be a good Seaman. And it can’t help but be true that the man who aspires to be the best Commanding Officer must first of all want to be the best “Exec.”
1. Jarrell.. Albert E., RAdm USN. “The Vanishing American Naval Officer.” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, September, 1954, p. 969.