I’ve noticed something in both the Air Force and business: the best followers often become the leaders.
From the outside, those people can sometimes be dismissed as “yes-men.” I think that misses an important distinction.
A yes-man tells the boss what the boss wants to hear. A great follower tells the boss what the boss needs to hear, but then also helps the organization move forward.
The ability to do both is part of what eventually makes that person capable of leading.
Consider the difference between telling a leader, “You’re brave,” and telling them, “Be courageous. I trust your judgment, and I’ll help you make this work.” The first sounds like a compliment, but it’s actually ambiguous. Maybe the leader is courageous. Maybe they’re reckless. Maybe they just take unnecessary risks. The second statement is different because it isn’t really a compliment at all. It’s a commitment.
There is language in Article IV of the Armed Forces Code of Conduct that I’ve always found powerful. The Code is specifically addressing the extraordinary circumstances of captivity, not laying out a general management philosophy, but the commitment contained in it has always stuck with me. It says that when you aren’t the senior person, you obey the lawful orders of those appointed over you and “back them up in every way.”
I think there’s something profound in the idea of backing up the person who has been given responsibility for making the decision. Leadership can be extraordinarily stressful and, at times, genuinely frightening. The leader may have information you don’t have, but more importantly, the leader carries accountability that you don’t carry. Eventually someone has to make a decision, and great followers understand both their responsibility to influence that decision and their responsibility once it has been made.
Encouragement Can Flow Upward
There is a similar moment in Joshua 1 that I think is easy to overlook. Most Christians are familiar with God’s repeated command to Joshua to “be strong and courageous” as Joshua prepares to lead Israel after Moses. What is interesting is what happens at the end of the chapter.
Joshua gives instructions to the people, and they respond by pledging their obedience and support. They will do what he commands and go where he sends them. Then they turn the same encouragement back toward their new leader: “Only be strong and courageous.”
The followers are encouraging the leader.
They’re not merely describing Joshua as courageous. They’re effectively telling him: Lead us. Do what you’ve been called to do. We’re going with you.
I think good leaders need followers like that more than we sometimes realize. A subordinate who says, “Boss, I think you’re making the right decision. I’m with you. How can I help?” is giving the leader something more valuable than a compliment. They’re providing support at precisely the moment the leader has to accept the risk of making a decision.
Good Followership Still Requires Disagreement
None of this means agreeing with your boss all the time. In fact, I would argue that a great follower has an obligation to tell the boss when the boss is wrong.
Tell them clearly. Bring evidence. Explain the risk. Offer an alternative. If you have expertise they don’t have, use it. But also learn how to communicate your disagreement in a way the other person can actually receive. Harmony matters, and being correct doesn’t give you license to demean someone, embarrass them, or communicate in a way that makes the relationship incapable of functioning afterward.
This is where I think constructive dissent and permanent opposition have to be separated.
Constructive dissent is trying to make the decision better. Permanent opposition is different. I’ve seen it in both government and business. Every new requirement is stupid. Senior leadership doesn’t understand. The customer is unreasonable. Headquarters doesn’t get it. The owner doesn’t know how to run the company. Eventually, the proposed solution to almost every problem becomes some variation of, “We should just tell them no.”
Sometimes the critic is even right about the underlying problem. But being right about the problem doesn’t make the requirement disappear. The customer still expects something. Higher headquarters still levies the requirement. The market still creates the constraint. The company still has to operate.
Someone has to figure out what to do next.
That’s one of the differences I’ve noticed in people who eventually become leaders. They tend to be the people who figure out how to get to yes. They may have argued against the requirement beforehand. They may have explained the risks, challenged the assumptions, and proposed better alternatives. But eventually a lawful and ethical decision gets made, and when it does, they don’t spend the next six months relitigating it.
Instead, the questions change: How do we accomplish this? What risks can we reduce? What does the boss need from me? How do we protect the organization while still accomplishing the requirement?
That’s not blind obedience. It’s recognizing the difference between having a voice in the decision and having the authority to make the final decision.
You should tell your boss when they’re wrong. You aren’t automatically entitled to win the argument.
There are limits to that relationship, of course. If you’ve repeatedly brought thoughtful concerns, evidence, and solutions to a leader who simply refuses to listen—or whose ego makes constructive disagreement impossible—the answer isn’t necessarily to become permanently disgruntled. Sometimes the better answer is to move. Find another part of the organization, work for another leader, or, in business, perhaps eventually find another company.
Why the Best Followers Become Leaders
I don’t think great followers get promoted because they’re good at saying yes. I think they often get promoted because they’re already demonstrating many of the skills leadership requires.
They solve problems. They manage competing demands. They communicate uncomfortable truths without unnecessarily destroying relationships. They understand the organization’s mission beyond their own preferences. They know when to argue and, just as importantly, when the argument is over. When a leader is struggling, they ask how they can help rather than simply pointing out that the leader is struggling.
Over time, those behaviors create trust. The person above you learns that you won’t hide a problem from them, but they also learn that when a difficult requirement comes down, you won’t simply throw up your hands and explain why it can’t be done. You’ll help find the best way through it.
That’s a very different person from a yes-man.
Eventually, many of those followers become leaders themselves. When they do, I hope they remember what it felt like to have someone like that behind them.
One of the greatest things a leader can receive isn’t a subordinate who always agrees. It’s someone who will tell them the truth, help them think through a difficult decision, and then help make it work.
Someone who can say, “Be courageous. I’ll tell you what I see, and I’ll help you carry this forward.”
That’s not a yes-man. That’s the kind of person I’d trust to lead.
Sources: Article IV, Armed Forces Code of Conduct ↗; Joshua 1:6–18 (ESV) ↗. Article IV addresses captivity. The response in Joshua 1:16–18 follows instructions to the Reubenites, Gadites, and half-tribe of Manasseh. The applications to organizational behavior and promotion here are personal observations and interpretation.
Military references are presented in a personal capacity for biographical context. Views expressed on this site are Andrew’s own and do not represent the official position of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Air Force, or any military organization. No endorsement is implied.