Royal Army College

Lesson Overview

An officer commands, but an officer is also commanded: every officer but the most senior has officers above them, peers beside them, and a place within the chain of command that they must hold well. It is easy, learning to be an officer, to think only of commanding downward, but an officer who cannot follow well, who is not loyal up the chain, and who cannot work with their peers and seniors, is a poor officer however well they lead their own soldiers. The earlier lessons taught the officer commanding their soldiers; this lesson teaches the officer as a member of the chain of command, following, supporting, and working with those above and beside them, not only commanding those below. It matters because an officer is part of a larger whole and must serve it, not only their own command, because the loyalty, followership, and cooperation an officer owes upward and across are as real as the leadership they owe downward, and because an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together, not each as a law unto themselves. For the Royal Kaharagian Army, whose officers must work within a chain and alongside one another, the officer's place in the chain is a foundation. This lesson teaches it: why the officer is a follower as well as a commander, the loyalty and followership an officer owes upward, and working with peers and the wider Army. As with the rest of the course, this is the understanding layer, building on the followership taught in the leadership course.

The lesson takes the officer in the chain in three parts. First, why the officer is a follower as well as a commander: that every officer but the most senior is commanded as well as commands, that an officer is part of a larger whole they must serve, and that an officer who cannot follow well is a poor officer however well they lead. Second, loyalty and followership upward: the loyalty, support, and honest followership an officer owes to those above them in the chain, including the candour before a decision and the wholehearted support after, and the limit of the unlawful order. Third, working with peers and the wider Army: the cooperation, loyalty, and good working an officer owes their fellow officers and the wider Army, so that the officers work together as one body rather than each pursuing their own command. Throughout, the lesson holds that an officer is a follower and a member of a body as well as a commander, that they owe loyalty and honest followership upward and cooperation across, and that an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together.

By the end you will be able to explain why an officer is a follower as well as a commander and part of a larger whole; give loyal, honest followership upward, with candour before a decision and wholehearted support after, and the limit of the unlawful order; work loyally and well with peers and the wider Army; explain why an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together; and explain how this builds on the followership taught in the leadership course.

Key Terms

The officer in the chain: the officer understood as a member of the chain of command, with officers above, peers beside, and a place to hold well, not only soldiers below.
Commander and follower: the truth that every officer but the most senior both commands those below and follows those above, being both at once.
Part of a larger whole: the understanding that an officer serves not only their own command but the larger body, the unit, the Army, the chain, of which they are a part.
Followership (for the officer): the active, loyal, honest support an officer gives those above them in the chain, the same good followership the leadership course taught, owed by officers too.
Loyalty upward: the loyalty an officer owes those above them, expressed as honest counsel before a decision and wholehearted support after, never as flattery or sabotage.
Candour before, support after: the discipline that an officer speaks honestly before a lawful decision is made and supports it wholeheartedly once made, the two being one loyalty.
The unlawful order: the limit on followership and loyalty, that a manifestly unlawful order is refused and reported, obedience being owed to lawful orders only.
Working with peers: the cooperation, loyalty, and good working an officer owes their fellow officers, so the officers act as one body rather than as rivals.
The wider Army: the larger body beyond the officer's own command, which the officer serves and works within, supporting the whole and not only their own part.
Supporting the chain: the officer's holding up of the chain of command by following, supporting, and cooperating, without which an Army of officers each pursuing their own command would not function.

Why the officer is a follower as well as a commander

The lesson begins by correcting a natural one-sidedness in learning to be an officer. The course so far has taught the officer to command: to lead, decide, direct, and care for the soldiers below them. This is right, and it is much of an officer's work. But it gives only half the picture, because an officer is not only a commander but also commanded: every officer but the single most senior has officers above them whom they must follow, peers beside them with whom they must work, and a place within the chain of command that they must hold well. An officer is therefore both a commander, to those below, and a follower, to those above, at once, and being a good officer means being good at both. It is easy, focused on learning to command, to think only of commanding downward and to neglect the following upward, but an officer who commands their own soldiers well yet follows poorly, is disloyal up the chain, or cannot work with their peers, is a poor officer, because they fail the larger whole of which they are a part.

This matters because an officer is part of a larger whole and must serve it, not only their own command. An officer's own unit or command is part of a larger body, the wider unit, the Army, the chain of command, and the officer serves that larger whole, not only their own part of it. An officer who served only their own command, pursuing its interests and their own without regard to the larger whole, supporting the chain only when it suited them, would damage the Army even while leading their own soldiers well, because an Army is not a collection of independent commands but a single body whose parts must work together under the chain. So the officer must serve the whole: following those above them so the chain works, working with their peers so the parts cooperate, and supporting the larger body and not only their own command. The loyalty, followership, and cooperation an officer owes upward and across are as real as the leadership they owe downward, and an officer's duty runs in all those directions, not only down to their soldiers. This is why an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together: an Army whose officers followed poorly, were disloyal up the chain, and would not work with one another, each a law unto themselves pursuing their own command, would not function as one body however well each officer led their own soldiers, because the whole would not hold together. The chain of command and the cooperation of the officers are what make the Army a single body, and the officers hold them up by following, supporting, and working together. So the candidate learns that an officer is a follower as well as a commander, part of a larger whole they must serve, and that being a good officer means following well, being loyal up the chain, and working with their peers, not only commanding their own soldiers. The next parts teach the following and the working: loyalty and followership upward, and working with peers and the wider Army.

   WHY THE OFFICER IS A FOLLOWER AS WELL AS A COMMANDER

   the course taught the officer to COMMAND (lead, decide, direct, care for
   the soldiers below). but that's half the picture:
   every officer but the most senior is also COMMANDED -- officers ABOVE to
   follow, PEERS beside to work with, a PLACE in the chain to hold well.
   -> an officer is COMMANDER (to those below) + FOLLOWER (to those above) at
      once; be good at BOTH. command well + follow poorly = a POOR officer.

   an officer is part of a LARGER WHOLE + must serve it, not only their own
   command:
     own command is part of the wider unit / Army / chain
     serve only your own command (pursue its + your own interests) -> damage
        the Army even while leading your soldiers well
   loyalty + followership + cooperation UPWARD + ACROSS are as real as the
   leadership owed DOWNWARD.

   an ARMY WORKS ONLY IF its officers SUPPORT THE CHAIN + WORK TOGETHER
   (officers each a law unto themselves -> the whole doesn't hold, however
   well each leads their own soldiers).

Loyalty and followership upward

The first direction of the officer's place in the chain is upward: the loyalty and followership an officer owes those above them. An officer follows those above them in the chain, and follows well, with the same good followership the leadership course taught every soldier, now owed by the officer to their seniors. Good followership, the leadership course held, is the active, loyal, honest support of a leader by someone effective in their own right, and an officer owes exactly this to their commanders: not passive, grudging, or merely obedient following, but active, loyal, intelligent support of their seniors, supporting them, carrying out their direction, and pulling their full weight in the larger effort. An officer who follows their seniors well is a strength to the chain; one who follows poorly, grudgingly, half-heartedly, or with quiet resistance, weakens it.

The loyalty an officer owes upward has the particular shape the leadership and NCO courses taught for the command relationship, and the officer holds it. It combines candour before a decision and wholehearted support after, which are one loyalty at two moments. Before a senior makes a decision, the officer owes them honest counsel: speaking the truth as they see it, giving their honest opinion and advice even when unwelcome, and pressing their case, because a senior is served by an officer who tells them the truth they need, not one who only agrees, and an officer who withholds honest counsel out of deference fails their senior. This candour is loyalty, not disloyalty: the loyal officer speaks honestly before the decision. Once the senior has made a lawful decision, the loyalty becomes wholehearted support: the officer commits to the decision and carries it out as their own, supporting it fully even if they argued against it, and never letting their soldiers or others see daylight between themselves and their senior, because a decision argued before and undermined after is the opposite of followership. Candour before and support after are one loyalty, and the officer holds both, never flattery before or sabotage after. The leadership course named the two errors: swallowing a real concern out of deference, and sulking or undermining a decision once lost, and the officer avoids both, arguing honestly before and supporting wholeheartedly after. There is one firm limit, which the law and leadership courses teach in full and the officer holds: a manifestly unlawful order is not followed but refused and reported, because obedience and loyalty are owed to lawful orders only, and the officer's deepest loyalty is to the lawful order of the Principality under the Crown, not to any senior's unlawful command. Short of that limit, the officer follows and supports their seniors loyally. So loyalty and followership upward is the officer's active, loyal, honest support of those above them, candid before a decision and wholehearted after, bounded only by the refusal of the manifestly unlawful, by which the officer is a strength to the chain they are part of. An officer who follows their seniors this way upholds the chain; one who does not weakens it, however well they command below.

   LOYALTY AND FOLLOWERSHIP UPWARD

   an officer FOLLOWS those above them, and follows WELL -- the same good
   FOLLOWERSHIP the leadership course taught: active, loyal, honest support
   by someone effective in their own right (not passive/grudging/merely obedient).
   follow well -> a strength to the chain; follow poorly -> weaken it.

   the LOYALTY owed upward = CANDOUR BEFORE + SUPPORT AFTER (one loyalty,
   two moments):
     BEFORE a decision -- honest COUNSEL: the truth as you see it, even
        unwelcome; press your case (withholding it out of deference FAILS
        your senior). candour IS loyalty.
     AFTER a lawful decision -- WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT: carry it out as your
        own, even one you argued against; no daylight shown to soldiers.
     avoid both errors: swallowing a concern out of deference; sulking/
        undermining a decision once lost. never flattery before / sabotage after.

   THE LIMIT: a MANIFESTLY UNLAWFUL order is refused + reported (obedience
   owed to LAWFUL orders only; deepest loyalty is to the lawful order under
   the Crown).

Working with peers and the wider Army

The second direction of the officer's place in the chain is across: working with their peers and the wider Army. An officer has fellow officers, peers beside them in the chain, and works alongside them, and an officer owes their peers cooperation, loyalty, and good working, so that the officers act as one body rather than as rivals each pursuing their own command. This horizontal cooperation is as important to the Army's working as the vertical chain, because the Army's tasks are done by its parts working together, and the officers who lead those parts must cooperate for the whole to function. An officer who works well with their peers, cooperating, supporting them, sharing the effort, and putting the larger task ahead of their own command's advantage, strengthens the Army; one who treats their peers as rivals, competes against them, withholds cooperation, or pursues their own command's interest at the expense of the whole, damages it, even while leading their own soldiers well.

Working with peers rests on a few things the candidate learns. It rests on cooperation: officers working together toward the common task, coordinating their commands, supporting one another, and acting as parts of one effort rather than separate fiefs. It rests on loyalty to peers and to the whole: an officer is loyal to their fellow officers and to the larger body, not undermining peers, not competing destructively, not putting their own command or advancement ahead of the Army, because the officers are one body serving one Army. And it rests on putting the larger task and the whole ahead of one's own command: an officer serves the Army's larger task, and where the good of the whole and the interest of their own command conflict, serves the whole, because the officer's duty is to the Army, not only to their own part of it. This connects to the selflessness and service the officer's commitment lesson teaches: the officer who works well with peers and serves the whole puts the Army ahead of self and own-command, which is part of the officer's character. The same extends to the wider Army beyond the officer's peers: the officer serves and supports the larger body, the wider unit, the Army, cooperating with other parts, supporting the whole, and holding up the chain and the cooperation that make the Army one. So working with peers and the wider Army is the officer's cooperation, loyalty, and good working across and within the body, by which the officers act as one and the Army functions as a whole. Taken with loyalty and followership upward, this completes the officer's place in the chain: the officer follows and supports those above, works with and is loyal to those beside, and serves the wider whole, as well as commanding those below, so that the officer is a member of a single body and not only a commander of their own command. An Army works only if its officers do this, supporting the chain upward, cooperating across, and serving the whole, rather than each being a law unto themselves, and the officer who holds their place in the chain well is a strength to the Army, while one who commands their own well but follows, cooperates, and serves the whole poorly is a weakness. As with the rest of the course, this is the understanding layer, building on the followership the leadership course taught and applying it to the officer in the chain. But the candidate carries the foundation: an officer is a follower and a member of a body as well as a commander, owing loyalty and honest followership upward and cooperation across, because an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together.

In Practice: The Officer Who Held Their Place in the Chain

Consider two officers of the Royal Kaharagian Army, equally able at commanding their own soldiers, and the difference made by how they hold their place in the chain, which shows this lesson. The first thinks only of commanding downward: they lead their own soldiers well, but follow their seniors poorly and treat their peers as rivals. Up the chain, they give their seniors no honest counsel before decisions and then support those decisions grudgingly or undermine them, or they comply silently and sulk; across, they compete with their fellow officers, withhold cooperation, and pursue their own command's interest at the expense of the larger task. However well they lead their own soldiers, they weaken the chain and the cooperation that hold the Army together, and the larger whole suffers for their poor following and rivalry.

The second officer holds their place in the chain well, understanding that an officer is a follower and a member of a body as well as a commander. Upward, they follow their seniors with active, loyal, honest followership: giving honest counsel before a decision, the truth as they see it even when unwelcome, and then, once a lawful decision is made, supporting it wholeheartedly and carrying it out as their own even if they argued against it, showing no daylight to their soldiers, candour before and support after being one loyalty. They hold the limit, that a manifestly unlawful order would be refused and reported, but short of that they are a loyal support to the chain. Across, they work well with their peers: cooperating toward the common task, supporting their fellow officers rather than competing destructively, and putting the larger task and the good of the whole ahead of their own command's advantage. They serve the wider Army, holding up the chain and the cooperation that make it one body.

The value is an officer who is a strength to the whole Army, not only to their own command, where the first officer, of equal ability below, is a weakness to the chain. Because the second officer followed loyally and honestly upward, worked cooperatively and loyally across, and served the larger whole, the chain and the cooperation that hold the Army together were strengthened by them, and the Army functioned as one body; the first officer's good command of their own soldiers could not make up for their poor following and rivalry. This shows the lesson's point: an officer is a follower and a member of a body as well as a commander, owing loyalty and honest followership upward and cooperation across, and an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together. The second officer held their place in the chain well, which is as much a part of being a good officer as commanding their own soldiers, and the whole of this lesson.

Check Your Understanding

Explain why an officer is "a follower as well as a commander" and "part of a larger whole." Why is an officer who commands their own soldiers well but follows poorly or will not work with peers "a poor officer," and why does an Army work only if its officers support the chain and work together?
Describe the loyalty and followership an officer owes upward: active, loyal, honest support, and the shape of candour before a decision and wholehearted support after. Why are candour and support "one loyalty," and what is the firm limit of the unlawful order?
Explain how an officer works with their peers and the wider Army: cooperation, loyalty to peers and the whole, and putting the larger task ahead of one's own command. Why is horizontal cooperation as important as the vertical chain, and how does it connect to the officer's selflessness and service?

Reflection (write a short paragraph): This lesson teaches that an officer is not only a commander of their own soldiers but a follower of those above, a peer to those beside, and a member of a larger whole they must serve, and that an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together rather than each being a law unto themselves. Think about why it is tempting, learning to command, to think only of leading downward, and why an officer who follows poorly or treats peers as rivals weakens the Army however well they lead their own soldiers. What would it take to hold your place in the chain well, following loyally and honestly upward, working cooperatively across, and serving the whole?

Summary

An officer commands but is also commanded: every officer but the most senior has officers above to follow, peers beside to work with, and a place in the chain to hold well, being commander (to those below) and follower (to those above) at once. An officer who commands well but follows poorly or will not work with peers is a poor officer.
An officer is part of a larger whole and must serve it, not only their own command: the loyalty, followership, and cooperation owed upward and across are as real as the leadership owed downward, and an Army works only if its officers support the chain and work together, not each as a law unto themselves.
Upward, an officer owes active, loyal, honest followership to their seniors, with the shape of candour before a decision (honest counsel, the truth even when unwelcome, since withholding it fails the senior) and wholehearted support after (carrying out a lawful decision as one's own, even one argued against, showing no daylight). Candour and support are one loyalty; the errors are swallowing a concern out of deference and undermining a lost decision; the limit is that a manifestly unlawful order is refused and reported.
Across, an officer owes their peers and the wider Army cooperation, loyalty, and good working, acting as one body rather than as rivals: cooperating toward the common task, being loyal to peers and the whole rather than competing destructively, and putting the larger task and the good of the whole ahead of their own command's advantage, which connects to the officer's selflessness and service.
Together, following and supporting upward, working and being loyal across, and serving the wider whole, as well as commanding below, make the officer a member of a single body and not only a commander. An officer who holds their place in the chain well is a strength to the Army; one who commands their own well but follows and cooperates poorly is a weakness.
This is the understanding layer, building on the followership taught in the leadership course and applied to the officer in the chain.
Cross-references: applies the active followership and the loyalty-up-down-and-sideways of Foundations of Military Leadership (LDR 201) to the officer; the candour-and-loyalty and the command partnership connect to The Officer and the NCO (Lesson 08) and NCO Development Course (LDR 310); the unlawful-order limit rests on The Commission and the Officer's Oath (Lesson 01) and The Law of Armed Conflict for Soldiers (PME 201); and serving the whole connects to the officer's commitment of Lesson 15.

The Officer in the Chain of Command: Followership, Loyalty, and Working with Others