Critical Followership: Thinking, Failing, and Leading

Introduction

Critical thinking is essential for military leadership, yet its counterpart— critical followership—remains underexplored. Effective military operations rely not only on strong leadership but also on subordinates capable of independent assessment, adaptation, and constructive feedback. Leaders emerge through experiences as followers, making critical followership an indispensable component of mission success.

Critical followership entails independent thought while remaining aligned with organizational goals. Unlike passive obedience, it fosters adaptability and resilience in dynamic environments. Understanding that leadership and followership are intertwined roles within the broader leadership framework is crucial. Effective followership enhances mission success through questioning assumptions, providing informed feedback, and executing orders with strategic awareness.

Positive vs. Negative Followership

Followership is not passive; it actively shapes organizational effectiveness. Critical followership—characterized by independent thinking, initiative, and alignment with the leader’s intent—enhances mission success. In contrast, uncritical followership, whether in the form of blind obedience or passive resistance, can lead to inefficiencies and mission failure.

Robert E. Kelley’s work on followership identifies key styles:

• Alienated Followers: Critical but passive, often cynical and disengaged.
• Conformist Followers: Active but uncritical, executing orders without questioning effectiveness.
• Exemplary Followers: Critical and engaged, balancing independence with loyalty to mission objectives.

Understanding these styles helps foster an adaptive, resilient military force. Different challenges require distinct followership approaches:

• Wicked Problems: Require constructive dissent to challenge flawed intelligence or strategic missteps.
• Tame Problems: Demand technical expertise and adherence to protocol for operational success.
• Critical Situations: Necessitate immediate compliance to maintain order and discipline.

A failure to encourage critical followership results in operational inefficiencies and mission failure. Engaging with alienated followers and ensuring that conformist followers develop critical thinking skills are essential leadership tasks. Leaders must foster an environment where followers feel empowered to voice concerns without fear of retribution. This balance ensures both discipline and innovation, preventing stagnation and groupthink within military units.

Followership in Command, Management, and Leadership

Military effectiveness depends on the interplay between command, management, and leadership, each demanding different followership approaches.

• Command (Obedient Followership in Crisis): Requires immediate execution of orders, with rapid situational judgment within defined parameters.
• Management (Competent Followership in Structured Environments): Involves optimizing processes while applying critical thinking within established guidelines.
• Leadership (Adaptive Followership in Complex Situations): Demands anticipation of challenges, strategic problem-solving, and adaptation to evolving conditions.

By integrating positive and negative followership models within these categories, military institutions can refine how subordinates engage critically while maintaining cohesion and order.

Mary Parker Follett’s insight that “The best leader knows how to make his followers actually feel power themselves, not merely acknowledge his power” underscores the active role of followership in shaping outcomes. Followers are not passive recipients but participants in decision-making, reinforcing the necessity of critical engagement.

A robust military force thrives on its ability to cultivate intelligent, adaptable personnel. Training programs should not merely focus on leadership development but also on followership training, equipping soldiers with the cognitive tools to assess situations critically. Emphasizing mission command philosophy, where subordinates exercise disciplined initiative, ensures they can operate effectively in uncertain conditions. When soldiers understand the intent behind orders rather than blindly executing commands, they contribute meaningfully to strategic objectives.

The Necessity of Critical Thinking in the Military

Anna Simons (2012) in “How Critical Should Critical Thinking Be?” examines the challenge of fostering analytical reasoning within military constraints. Critical followership builds on this idea by shifting focus from leadership to followership, emphasizing its role in mission command and decentralized decision-making. By refining models of followership, we can strike a balance where adaptability enhances operational effectiveness without eroding cohesion and order.

Military education often frames critical thinking as a leadership trait, yet it is equally vital for effective followership. Soldiers who apply critical thought without undermining command structures enhance adaptability and decision-making. Striking a balance between independent analysis and disciplined execution strengthens military effectiveness, mitigating operational risks and fostering resilience.

The ability to think critically in high-pressure environments allows followers to identify potential threats and inconsistencies in intelligence. Encouraging constructive skepticism within the ranks prevents strategic miscalculations. However, fostering critical followership requires trust—leaders must be open to feedback, creating an environment where subordinates feel comfortable challenging flawed reasoning. Without this openness, hierarchical rigidity stifles innovation, leading to ineffective decision-making.

Overcoming Barriers to Critical Followership

Despite its benefits, several challenges hinder the development of critical followership. Traditional military hierarchies often discourage questioning authority, reinforcing a culture of obedience over inquiry. To counteract this, military training institutions must integrate exercises that promote decision-making under uncertainty, fostering adaptability without eroding discipline. From the Prussian Auftragstaktik to modern decentralized command structures, militaries that encourage initiative and critical engagement at all levels tend to outperform those that emphasize blind obedience.

A key challenge is distinguishing between constructive dissent and insubordination. Followers must learn how to present concerns tactfully, ensuring their feedback contributes to mission success rather than undermining authority. Leaders, in turn, must differentiate between questioning that strengthens operational effectiveness and resistance that disrupts cohesion.

Additionally, cognitive biases pose a threat to effective followership. Confirmation bias, groupthink, and authority bias can cloud judgment, leading to poor decisions. Training programs should incorporate scenario-based exercises that challenge these biases, encouraging followers to assess situations objectively.

The Role of Education and Training

To cultivate critical followership, military education must evolve beyond technical skill-building to include cognitive and ethical development. Programs should emphasize:

• Scenario-Based Learning: Simulated battlefield environments that require rapid, independent decision-making.
• Case Studies: Analyzing historical military failures and successes through the lens of followership.
• Ethical Decision-Making: Encouraging soldiers to weigh the moral implications of orders.
• Communication Skills: Training followers to articulate concerns constructively and propose viable alternatives.

By incorporating these elements, military institutions can develop soldiers who not only execute orders but also contribute to strategic success through informed decision-making.

Conclusion

The U.S. military operates under the principle of mission command, which empowers leaders at all levels to exercise judgment and initiative. Orders are issued with both a task and a purpose—so if circumstances make the task unfeasible, soldiers can adapt while still achieving the broader objective. Many soldiers who have served in ambiguous combat zones describe moments where doctrine and reality clash—where the map says one thing, but the terrain tells a different story. Navigating this tension is where critical thinking must thrive, yet without undermining military cohesion. Understanding intent enables flexibility, which is critical in complex and unpredictable combat environments.

Decentralized decision-making and initiative at lower levels improve military effectiveness. A Ukrainian non-hierarchical approach initially helped counter Russian forces and serves as a successful albeit short-lived example of mission command in practice. In contrast, the Russian (and non-NATO) model generally is rigidly task-focused, providing no additional guidance or room for adjustment. This fundamental difference underscores the importance of critical thinking in military effectiveness.

Fostering critical followership enhances military success further by promoting adaptability, reducing risk, and improving decision-making at all levels. Recognizing followership as an active intellectual process enables military institutions to navigate modern warfare’s complexities more effectively. Leaders who cultivate an environment of critical engagement empower their subordinates, ensuring a more strategic, resilient force.

The modern battlefield is unpredictable, requiring a force that can think as well as fight. Encouraging soldiers to engage critically with their roles strengthens operational effectiveness and ensures military organizations remain agile in the face of evolving threats. By embracing critical followership, military institutions can foster a culture of excellence, where both leaders and followers contribute meaningfully to mission success.

It is this very cohort today from which tomorrow’s senior leaders—and critically, their followers—will emerge. The future of military leadership depends on those in uniform today. If cadets and junior officers are not encouraged to develop habits of critical followership now, when will they? Leadership is a continuum that begins with followership, and fostering an environment where subordinates can critically engage with their superiors ensures that tomorrow’s military leaders will be more adaptable, insightful, and effective.