1

Followership and Servant Leadership

Student Name

Institution

Course

Professor

Date
 2

Followership and Servant Leadership

Since inception, the U.S army has been thought to be an independent entity

charged with the solemn responsibility of executing the entire combat power on

matters security. To this effect, it has been insinuated that in one way or another, the

army works with little or no influence from other non-security entities outside the

government. The efficiency of the U.S army has been fully guided by followership

and servant leadership. This has been the sole provider of the army ethical operation

and professionalism which ensures that such entities are run in the most

professional and ethical manner, hence, a success in all endeavors. To this effect,

there will be followers and servant leaders accompanying military personnel

anywhere they are commissioned to run their security errands no matter the case.

The text is going to explore the comparison between followership and servant

leadership in the army, while intensifying the actual roles of the two military tenets in

the army as articulated in the army values.

To begin with, followership in the army partakes critical roles such as offering

full subordinate roles to the army personnel. This implies that a follower in the army

leads the combats with all the morals and ethics that will give them glued to the

mission at hand and ensure that in any way, they should not be dragged out of the

mission path (Army, 2019). Therefore, they keep reminding the combats to embrace

the sheep, alienation, the yes personality, the survival norm and the being effective

military doctrine. In most cases, followership can be passive or active, but the end

outcome is safety and mission accomplishment.

Unlike followership, servant leadership in the army conforms power sharing.

This emerges as a result of the fact that while in the army, one needs to be putting

the interests of others first rather than being self -centered. This asserts that by
 3

doing so, one will be able to deliver more than expected of them (Army, 2019). With

servant leadership in the army, the notion of taking leadership for granted is

condemned, with respect towards each other taking stage. This eventually leads to

successful accomplishment of missions. It is therefore certain that servant leaders in

the military assume guidance roles, provision of directions to the combats which is

possible done by constantly reminding them their purpose.

Moreover, followership in the army is characterized by elements of flexibility,

team orientation and being quick in making observation in order to direct and

command the combats appropriately (Ross, 2023). Followers who are obedient

always emerge strong from the battles no matter how dire it is. This is made possible

through collaboration, team orientation, interdependence and cooperation.

Servant leadership on the other hand portray features full of ingenuity,

humility and initiation. This implies that being a servant leader, one should always be

ready and willing to step into action towards ensuring that military missions are

attained as expected (Ross, 2023). The stepping forward is done by servants

through swift innovation, change of tactics to counter enemies and by not allowing

the objective to be distracted.

However, the differences, both followership and servant leadership in the

army share similarities. These include the fact that they operate independently, work

along a common thinking line and also serve a common purpose, which is ensuring

safety among people.

In summary, both servant leadership and followership in army operate

differently and similarly at a specific juncture. As stated earlier, servant leadership

offer directions and guidelines to combats while followers commission all subordinate

roles such as ensuring that combats have all the necessities for mission
 4

accomplishment. However, they both work in connection for ease attainment of army

goals.
 5

References

Army, U. S. (2019). ADP 6-22 Army leadership and the profession. Department of

the Army, 206-22.

Ross, D. W. (2023). A Phenomenological Study of US Army Special Forces Senior

Noncommissioned Officer Leadership Strategies During the Global War on

Terror (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado Technical University).

https://www.proquest.com/openview/5e7823aa2c1085a72ee99f6f6418ef56/1?

pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y