Critical Followership: Thinking, Failing, and Leading – Expanded Analysis

Introduction

Critical thinking is widely acknowledged as an essential skill for military leadership, yet its counterpart—critical followership—remains underexplored. Effective military operations depend not only on decisive leadership but also on subordinates capable of critical assessment, adaptation, and constructive feedback. And military leaders do not emerge in a vacuum; they are shaped by their experiences as subordinates.

Critical followership is the ability of subordinates to think independently while remaining aligned with organizational goals. It involves questioning assumptions, providing informed feedback, and executing orders with an awareness of their broader strategic implications. Unlike passive obedience, critical followership fosters adaptability and resilience, especially in dynamic operational environments.

Understanding that followership and leadership are roles within the broader framework of leadership itself is essential. The natural relationship between leaders and followers is shaped by self-concept, trust, and the ability to adapt to evolving missions. When followers engage in critical thinking and constructive dialogue, they contribute to mission success rather than merely complying with directives. This paper examines the role of critical followership within hierarchical military structures, emphasizing its importance in mission command and decentralized decision-making.

Positive vs. Negative Followership

Followership is often perceived as a passive role, but it is an active and dynamic process that can either enhance or hinder organizational effectiveness. Critical followership involves independent thinking, initiative, and alignment with the leader’s intent, contributing to mission success. Conversely, uncritical followership can manifest as blind obedience, complacency, or passive resistance, leading to inefficiencies and mission failure. As management guru Robert E. Kelley noted, “So the question is not whether to have followers but what kind of followers we want. I think what we want is ‘good’ followership—people who take appropriate actions with great skill and achievement.”

The self-concepts of followers matter. Alienated followers, for example, may have criticisms of leaders, but are passive—often cynical and sarcastic. They may suffer from unmet expectations. Conversely, conformist followers are active but do not engage in critical thinking, accepting assignments without questioning their legitimacy or effectiveness. Moving toward critical followership requires addressing unmet expectations and fosters engagement between leaders and alienated followers to align on new objectives. It also means that too conformist followers be directed to take responsibility for their uncritical followership, or else seek success elsewhere.

Understanding the nuances between these forms of followership is essential for fostering an adaptive and resilient military force. Models of followership (see also Kelley, Grint, Chaleff, Kellerman, and Riggio) can provide a framework for balancing adaptability with operational effectiveness, ensuring that flexibility does not erode cohesion and order. The particular model that is used is not very important. The point is to engage in reflection and conversation about the fact that there are different styles of followership and that these always interact with leadership. This is the natural relationship between leaders and followers.

By understanding different followership styles, leaders can foster a culture where subordinates think independently while maintaining alignment with mission objectives. For example, the effectiveness of military followership can be examined through a positive (enhancing leadership) and negative (detrimental to leadership) model, especially when applied to different types of military challenges. Such models can then influence decision-making at all levels of engagement.

Positive Model:

• For wicked problems: Constructive dissent is vital. Followers may not agree with every action, but they align with the broader goal and provide critical feedback when necessary. For example, during counterinsurgency operations, soldiers who challenge flawed intelligence assessments can prevent tactical missteps.
• For tame problems: Technical experts are needed to focus on the task without resistance. In logistical planning, precision and adherence to protocol ensure operational success.
• For critical situations: Compliance without resistance is required to maintain order and discipline, as in high-intensity combat scenarios where immediate obedience ensures survival.

Negative Model:

• For wicked problems: Followers avoid responsibility, leading efforts astray or failing to provide crucial insights. A lack of critical thinking during humanitarian interventions may result in ineffective aid distribution.
• For tame problems: Over-compliance with nonsensical rules hinders progress and adaptability. Strict adherence to outdated procedures without question can delay mission objectives.
• For critical situations: Followers outright refuse to comply, undermining the system and creating operational dysfunction. Instances of insubordination in combat zones can lead to mission failure and increased casualties.

Followership in Command, Management, and Leadership

The conceptual distinction between command, management, and leadership has roots in both military and business traditions. But its conceptual separation evolved over time through various disciplines, including military strategy, organizational theory, and leadership studies. Command is the oldest of the three, originating in military history. It refers to the authority to give orders and enforce obedience. Ancient military theorists like Sun Tzu (The Art of War) and Carl von Clausewitz (On War)  emphasized command as the ability to make decisive orders in combat. Leadership in a military context emerged as distinct from command, as effective generals not only commanded but also inspired and led their troops (e.g., Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar). Management in the military developed later with the rise of large bureaucratic armies, particularly in the Napoleonic era and beyond, focusing on logistics, planning, and organization (e.g., Prussian military reforms under Helmuth von Moltke the Elder). The U.S. military and organizations like NATO formalized the distinction between command (authority in structured environments), management (resource allocation and planning), and leadership (inspiring and guiding people).

• Command (Obedient Followership in Crisis Situations): Soldiers must exhibit obedient followership, executing orders rapidly and efficiently. While deep critical analysis is limited in crisis situations, soldiers must still engage in rapid, situational judgment within the boundaries of their given orders. For example, in battlefield operations, immediate response to orders can mean the difference between mission success and failure.
• Management (Competent Followership in Structured Environments): Soldiers in managerial roles exercise competent followership, applying established protocols and optimizing existing systems. Critical thinking is used within predefined parameters to improve processes, rather than to challenge authority or strategic objectives. An example would be logistics officers refining supply chain operations for efficiency.
• Leadership (Adaptive Followership in Complex, Wicked Problems): Soldiers must engage in adaptive followership, where critical thinking plays a significant role. They are expected to anticipate challenges, navigate uncertainty, and contribute to strategic goals while still adhering to military discipline. In counterinsurgency operations, for instance, adaptive followers modify engagement strategies based on evolving intelligence.

By integrating the positive and negative followership models into these categories, we can further refine how different military contexts demand different types of critical engagement.

Leadership, command, and management serve distinct but interrelated functions. While command focuses on authority and structure, leadership inspires vision and cohesion. Management ensures efficiency and resource allocation. Critical followership enhances all three by enabling constructive dissent, mitigating errors, and promoting initiative within established frameworks.

One of the largely forgotten but most insightful of the early management scholars (and someone described as being “too far ahead of her time”), Mary Parker Follett, reinforces this point, “The best leader knows how to make his followers actually feel power themselves, not merely acknowledge his power.” This underscores the idea that followers are not merely passive recipients of orders but active participants in shaping outcomes. When leaders empower their subordinates, they cultivate an environment where critical followership thrives.

Note how hard it is not to slip into considering leaders and followers as being opposites, if you’re not a leader—then you must be a follower. This isn’t really true, for both leader and follower are roles in a setting where both are trying to achieve some common goal. The opposite of this, then, would be a non-leader and a non-follower. So, someone may be occupying the role of a leader or a follower in a particular context, but they both contribute to leadership as I am defining it.

The Necessity of Critical Thinking in the Military

Anna Simons’ (2012) “How Critical Should Critical Thinking Be? Teaching Soldiers in Wartime,” carefully and cleverly examines the challenge of cultivating analytical reasoning within the constraints of military discipline. Critical followership builds on her argument but shifts the focus from leadership to followership, emphasizing its importance in mission command and decentralized decision-making, and exploring how soldiers can apply critical thinking without undermining command structures. By refining models of followership, we can strike a balance where adaptability enhances operational effectiveness without eroding cohesion and order.

Fostering critical followership strengthens military effectiveness by promoting adaptability, reducing operational risk, and enhancing decision-making at all levels. By recognizing followership as an active, intellectual process, military institutions can better navigate the complexities of modern warfare and organizational leadership.

In military education, critical thinking is frequently framed as a leadership trait. Cadets and junior officers are encouraged to analyze complex situations, question assumptions, and engage in problem-solving exercises. However, leadership is not merely about independent thought; it is also about how one interacts with superiors and peers. Critical followership emphasizes not only questioning decisions but also understanding when and how to challenge authority constructively. It is about being an active participant in decision-making while maintaining the cohesion necessary for military effectiveness.

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. 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 served 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.

Critical thinking is an essential skill for soldiers, particularly in contemporary conflicts where asymmetrical warfare, counterinsurgency operations, and complex geopolitical landscapes demand adaptability. Unlike traditional battlefield engagements, modern warfare often requires soldiers to make split-second ethical and strategic decisions without immediate oversight. Encouraging critical thinking enables them to assess threats, adapt tactics, and respond effectively to unpredictable scenarios. However, the paradox remains: how can soldiers exercise independent judgment while remaining disciplined followers within a rigid chain of command?

Consider, for instance, the classic dilemma of a junior officer in a remote outpost who receives an order that doesn’t quite make sense. Does he follow it blindly and risk mission failure, or does he deviate from the command, knowing that disobedience could have career-ending consequences? 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.

The traditional military structure, with its emphasis on hierarchy and obedience, can sometimes be at odds with fostering critical followership. Yet, historical case studies demonstrate that effective military organizations rely on subordinates who can think independently while executing orders. 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.

Reconciling Discipline and Critical Thinking

Simons highlights the paradox at the heart of military effectiveness: military success relies on hierarchy and discipline, yet critical thinking encourages questioning and independent judgment. This tension can be managed through a tiered approach to followership training:

• At the command level, followership should emphasize disciplined execution with rapid, structured decision-making frameworks.
• At the management level, soldiers should be encouraged to refine and optimize existing systems through measured analysis within a controlled environment.
• At the leadership level, followership should evolve into adaptive, context-sensitive judgment where soldiers contribute insights while maintaining alignment with mission objectives.

Failing to balance these levels can lead to negative followership outcomes—overthinking when compliance is needed, or blind obedience when critical analysis is essential.

Lessons from Recent Conflicts

Lessons from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate the importance of critical thinking in counterinsurgency and peacekeeping missions. Soldiers often engage with local populations, navigate complex cultural dynamics, and face ambiguous threats. Those trained to be adaptive followers—balancing critical thought with disciplined action—are better equipped to make informed decisions. These lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, with their emphasis on counterinsurgency, peacekeeping, and community engagement, underscore the value of flexible, ground-level judgment. However, the character of conflict has continued to evolve.

The war in Ukraine presents a different but equally instructive case—one of large-scale conventional warfare against a peer adversary. Despite the differences in terrain, tactics, and threat environment, Ukraine also demonstrates how empowering junior leaders with decision-making authority and critical judgment can yield strategic advantages. Ukraine’s ability to decentralize command, allowing junior officers to make battlefield decisions, reinforces the argument about the necessity of critical thinking in modern warfare. In contrast, failures in rigid, top‑down strategies—typified by the Russian military’s hierarchical command structure in Ukraine—have hindered timely responses, stifled initiative, and led to costly tactical setbacks. The Russian emphasis on centralized control has impaired coordination between units and slowed battlefield adaptation. Conversely, Ukraine’s adoption of mission‑command principles—emphasizing decentralized execution and empowering junior leaders—has fostered initiative, rapid adaptation, and measurable success on the ground. These divergent outcomes suggest that encouraging adaptable followership enhances overall mission effectiveness.

For example, junior officers who were given some leeway to adjust their tactics to local realities often found greater success in securing communities than those who rigidly followed top-down directives. The U.S. Army’s village stability operations in Afghanistan demonstrated this principle, where success often depended on local adaptation. Conversely, negative followership—where soldiers either resisted necessary adjustments or blindly complied with failing strategies—often led to mission failure.

A key challenge is balancing disciplined execution with independent judgment. Military organizations must cultivate a culture where subordinates feel empowered to think critically without undermining cohesion. Training programs and institutional reforms can help develop a cadre of followers who enhance, rather than obstruct, mission success.

Conclusion

Simons’ exploration of critical thinking in wartime remains relevant in today’s security landscape. 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.

By re-examining command, management, and leadership through the lens of followership, we see that different military contexts demand different types of critical engagement. It’s the situation that should dictate which one is chosen. While traditional military training prioritizes obedience, modern conflicts require soldiers to engage in nuanced decision-making. Integrating a positive followership model—one that balances discipline with constructive dissent—ensures that soldiers contribute meaningfully to mission success without undermining operational effectiveness.

By shifting the focus from critical thinking as an individual cognitive skill to critical followership as a necessary function within military structures, we ensure that critical engagement is not simply an academic exercise but a foundational element of military culture. The capacity to critically assess orders, provide constructive feedback, and make informed decisions at all levels of hierarchy is vital. But without fostering critical followership, critical thinking risks being an isolated skill rather than an embedded cultural norm. This paradigm shift recognizes that the best leaders emerge from those who have learned to think critically as followers first. As modern warfare continues to evolve, refining military education to cultivate adaptive followership will be key to sustaining operational agility and mission success.