Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Loyalty and the Light Brigade

“'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ? Not tho' the soldier knew Some one had blunder'd: Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do & die, Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred.”
Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Appropriate and effective followership depends on thoughtful critical analysis of the actions and decisions of people in leadership roles. In Irving L. Janis’ “Groupthink”, he describes how the Kennedy staff succumbed to “shared illusions and related norms” that crippled their ability as followers to effectively analyze the events that lead up to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Each man secure in the belief that the plan was supported by each of the others, they fell into a self-reinforcing pattern of factual denial. When Schlesinger opposed the plan to invade, he was asked to stop because “the president has made his mind up… now is the time for everyone to help him all they can.”
Without a safety net to censor out the ridiculous, silly, and irrelevant thoughts that we all are subject to, even the best leader will make mistakes. One is reminded of Tennyson’s poem, “The Charge of The Light Brigade”. Initially written as a propaganda piece meant to honor the loyalty of the British soldiers in Crimea, it now reads as a damning indictment of those who blindly follow their orders.
As a culture, we are slowly beginning to recognize the value of skepticism in followers. Although in “The Power of Followership” Kelley warns against blind disapproval on the grounds that it weakens the impact of legitimate disagreement, modern society is also dismissive of those who blindly follow. How many times have we heard the words “I don’t want any ‘Yes-men’”? Although individual leaders may wax tyrannical from time to time, a growing culture of responsible skepticism has the potential to force leaders to listen to those they lead.
In the end, the responsibility for a group’s actions has to fall on those in the group who support them or, through inaction, allow them to be supported. The blind loyalty of the Kennedy cabinet led to their plan’s failure, and the unquestioning nature of Tennyson’s soldiers led to their death. In their roles as responsible agents with some measure of power, we cannot help but assign some of the blame for their failure to their unthinking loyalty.



Questions
1. Is it the responsibility of a leader to represent his constituents’ views rather than his own, or is the responsibility of the followers to choose a leader who shares their beliefs?
2. To what extent are group consensus and loyalty assets?

2 comments:

  1. I really like your comparison of the Kennedy followers and the loyal soldiers as they both represent the damaging effects of blind followership. In response to your first question, I think that a leader is generally responsible for representing the views of his or her followers. Nevertheless, I think that one of the purposes of a leader is to make important decisions that may sometimes go against the desires of the followers. I believe that if leaders simply did what their followers wanted them to do, then there would be very little purpose to having a leader in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. While I definitely agree with your argument about skepticism, I was just wondering how someone can discern the right amount of skepticism to have? You said, rightly so, that "yes-men" and blind disapproval are not the ideal levels, so is it right in the middle? more to one side than the other? Or perhaps it depends on the situation. Additionally, who is more responsible for having skepticism in a group, the followers or the leaders? In the Bay of Pigs example, it seemed like neither voiced skepticism, when maybe both the followers and leaders should have been wary of the situation.

    ReplyDelete