A squad leader is never only one thing.
In relation to his soldiers, he is a leader. In relation to his platoon commander, he is a subordinate. There is no contradiction here. Military hierarchy depends on people being able to inhabit both roles at the same time.
The real tension is not between being a leader and being a subordinate. The real tension is between being an agentic subordinate and being a mindless executor.
From a social psychology perspective, this matters because people do not simply “act from character.” They also adapt to roles, rules, and norms. Every social context teaches people what kind of behavior is expected, rewarded, tolerated, or punished. A subordinate leader may formally hold the role of “squad leader,” but the local social situation may teach him a very different role:
Your job here is not to judge. Your job is to wait, receive, and comply.
A platoon commander does not need to explicitly say, “I want robots.” He can communicate it through repeated interaction: dismissing input, punishing questions, correcting every minor deviation, centralizing every decision, or treating friction as disloyalty. Over time, subordinate leaders learn the local rules of the game.
The dangerous part is that agency can become norm-violating behavior.
If the local norm is mechanical compliance, then asking a question starts to feel like resistance. Offering judgment feels like arrogance. Adapting to changed conditions feels like disobedience. The subordinate leader still carries responsibility for outcomes, but the social environment has taught him that exercising judgment is unsafe.
That creates a toxic contradiction:
You are responsible for leading, but punished for acting like a leader.
Many leaders later complain about the very behavior they helped create. They say they want initiative, but their daily interactions reward permission-seeking. They say, “Think for yourself,” but they punish honest friction. They say, “Lead your soldiers,” but they interact with subordinate leaders as if leadership below them is a threat to control.
This is not an argument against hierarchy. Military organizations need command, obedience, and discipline. But obedience does not require the absence of agency. Good subordination is not mechanical compliance. It is judgment disciplined by intent, role, and responsibility.
The practical question for leaders is simple:
What role am I making safe for my subordinate leaders to perform?
Am I making it safe to think, question, adapt, and own the mission within my intent?
Or am I making it safest to shut up, wait, and execute mechanically?
Because people do not only follow orders. They also adapt to roles, rules, and norms. And under pressure, they will usually perform the role they have practiced most.
