I LEAD, THERFORE I FOLLOW
By Robert Vernon
Published in Law Officer Magazine © 2007
When I first encountered the maxim “I lead, therefore I follow,” I felt confused. I thought it made more sense to assert something like “Lead, follow or get out of the way.” How could one lead and follow at the same time? It just didn’t seem logical to link the two concepts together.
Consider the following scenario, however. Your lieutenant proposes a
strategy to address the gang problem in your district. The strategy
includes an effort to identify young pre-gang members. Officers will
complete contact cards on these wannabes when interviewed in the
company of known gang members. After three documented contacts,
officers will notify the parents of these at-risk juveniles. You
believe this program is less important than other priorities, and
you say so to the lieutenant. Eventually the lieutenant announces
his decision to move ahead with the strategy. Later you discuss this
issue with the two probationary officers working under your
leadership. You explain the program is unimportant, and that they
therefore do not need to diligently follow the lieutenant’s
direction.
A few weeks later you notice your two trainees are not following all
of your directions. They fail to scrutinize crime-analysis
documents, and they plan their discretionary patrol accordingly. You
talk with each of them to correct their lack of cooperation and
compliance. After thinking about these conversations, you come to a
troubling conclusion. They behave toward you exactly as they’ve
witnessed you behave toward your lieutenant. By example, you have
taught them it’s acceptable to evaluate directions from leaders and
then decide which to follow diligently. You have given them a faulty
model of a follower’s behavior. You have unwittingly taught them to
disobey you.
On the Other Hand
Now consider a second scenario. You make a traffic stop. The driver
appears unusually nervous. Something about his behavior causes you
to grow cautious. After obtaining his driver’s license, you order
him to step from the vehicle and pat him down for weapons. He has
none. He answers your questions evasively. You conduct a cursory
search of the vehicle and find a gun under the front seat. You hook
him up and request backup. You discover he was just involved in an
armed robbery with shots fired.
Later, as you prepare your arrest report, the lieutenant expresses
concern about the probable cause for your search. He tells you to
prepare your report indicating you observed the barrel of the gun
protruding from under the seat while requesting the suspect’s
driver’s license. You clarify that you did not see the gun prior to
the search. He explains the robbery case will be lost unless you
follow his suggestion.
Hopefully, you’ll never be exposed to this type of corrupt
leadership. But if it should occur, is there a rule to follow? If
being a good follower is important to your
leadership, is there any exception to the general rule of following
those above you?
Principle vs. Preference
The defining difference between the two scenarios is principle as
opposed to preference. In the first scenario, the lieutenant directs
you to do something you believe is low priority. You would prefer
not to do it. This is a matter of preference and is no excuse for
non-compliance. In the second scenario, the lieutenant asks you to
violate a basic principle, and you must resist. In such cases, I
recommend using a strong word to draw attention to the principle.
For example, in this scenario I would say, “Lieutenant, I believe
that would be perjury.”
In the practice of leadership, to cultivate legitimate authority,
you must follow the leader yourself. When you step out from under
authority, you lose that power. The only exception involves matters
of principle, not simply preference. Legitimate authority does not
demand followers violate laws or established principles. If you are
asked to do something illegal, immoral or unethical, a polite but
firm resistance is appropriate.
The big challenge here is to distinguish between principle and
preference. Most of us instinctively want to classify something as a
matter of principle if we hold a strong opinion or preference. In my
nearly four decades of law enforcement experience, I can count on
one hand the rare times when a superior officer even suggested I
violate a principle. Although I must admit there were many times
when my first reaction was to inaccurately classify my preference as
a principle.
Bottom Line
Effective leaders understand the importance of being a model
follower. They strive to discern between preference and principle.
Consequently, they propagate a chain of powerful leadership—on
point.
Bob Vernon retired from the Los Angeles Police Department after 37 years on the force. He earned an MBA at Pepperdine University and is a graduate of the University of Southern California’s Managerial Policy Institute and the FBI’s National Executive Institute. After retirement, Vernon founded The Pointman Leadership Institute (visit http://pointmanleadership.org), which provides principle-based ethics seminars around the world for police agencies, parliament members, military leaders and a variety of other groups.