Is Holdo a good leader?

[Jub]

Depends on the expectations he was trying to subvert. I think Holdo was more along the lines of the Obstructive Bureaucrat, "respect my authority!" type, while Poe was supposed to be the Cowboy Cop who Does What's Right, not what the rules say. In a normal action/cop movie, Poe would have been proven right by going around the hidebound superior and doing what needed to be done, except of course in this case his way was wrong and Holdo's way was (allegedly) right. That's the subversion.

It just so happens that it makes Holdo a shitty leader in the process.

Holdo's way, regardless of anything Poe did, was also doomed to fail without Luke doing what he did.

A more flexible plan that split off at least one escort would have made far more sense and saved many lives. Sending out a shuttle to get fuel would also have made more sense. In this case, being hidebound and stuck to a poor plan doomed thousands to death all because Holdo was among the worst leaders possible in the situation she found herself in.

[MarxII]

I wonder if the overall depiction of Holdo is a case of Rian Johnson not understanding how to be subversive as a writer.

He set up Holdo with a lot of flaws, but she's supposed to be redeemed in the eyes of the audience by the end of the arc. But her final actions has nothing to do with good leadership. Yes, she is willing to sacrifice her life for people under her, but you don't need to be a leader to do that. It really doesn't reveal "she's a good leader all along!"

TLDR: Holdo was given far too many flaws as a leader for this to merely be a POV issue.

I'd like to second this notion, which goes a considerable ways toward describing my problems with the film overall.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that from what I recall, Poe's criticism of Poe was never some nebulous "she's a bad leader"- that's a case members of the fandom constructed to condemn Holdo and exonerate Poe. Poe's actual criticism of Holdo was basically that she rubbed him the wrong way based on their initial encounter, dissatisfaction that she didn't tell him the plan, and then concluding that she was a coward/traitor, which her final actions do exonerate her for.

[Jub]

The problem is that from what I recall, Poe's criticism of Poe was never some nebulous "she's a bad leader"- that's a case members of the fandom constructed to condemn Holdo and exonerate Poe. Poe's actual criticism of Holdo was basically that she rubbed him the wrong way based on their initial encounter, dissatisfaction that she didn't tell him the plan, and then concluding that she was a coward/traitor, which her final actions do exonerate her for.

She was a bad leader and a poorly written character though.

Even if her plan was good she hurt its chances of success by not allowing for an alternate victory condition. She lost a pair of escorts that could have jumped away. She tanked morale badly enough that people wanted to take their chances fleeing or removing her from command by force.

Poe wasn't some saint himself but that's not exactly relevant when discussing Holdo's abilities as a senior officer in command of thousands of lives.

[Patroklos]

All this talk of squadron commanders and apparently none of you bothered to look it up.

In the vast majority of militaries non-capital ships are commanded by OF-4s (US CDR equivalent). The same is true for squadrons, so generally ship and squadron COs rank together.

How those of the same rank establish seniority differs greatly country to country, but in the US its established by lineal number. This number is established at commissioning and generally sticks with you with no change over your carreer. Unless it is already established ahead of time, precedence for assumption of command follows seniority. For instance, if two US ships encounter each other and are of the same rank, the CO with the higher lineal number can take tactical control of the junior COs ship. This is obviously not so much a thing now given instantaneous comma with higher HQ, but it is still a thing.

In the case of Poe he reads as a wing commander equivalent, which is an O6 position, so I would expect Poe to outrank the other escort captains. EXCEPT Holdo is holding a ridiclously inflated rank, which makes me think rank at the upper levels of the Rebels is nonstandard and in some respects arbitrary. In such circumstances personality and gravitas may be more important in practice than some Mickey Mouse military trappings loudly laid over a more tribal style of organization.

[Gandalf]

So your conclusion is that an armed resistance movement in some other galaxy might not function like a modern Earth military? Considering many of their armies have been led by space wizards, it might alter how they see and do things.

[ray245]

The problem is that from what I recall, Poe's criticism of Poe was never some nebulous "she's a bad leader"- that's a case members of the fandom constructed to condemn Holdo and exonerate Poe. Poe's actual criticism of Holdo was basically that she rubbed him the wrong way based on their initial encounter, dissatisfaction that she didn't tell him the plan, and then concluding that she was a coward/traitor, which her final actions do exonerate her for.

Can you stop bringing up what the fandom said? It really doesn't matter what the fandom thinks, because I don't think we should care about what the fandom thinks. You have a bad habit of turning this discussion into a tribalistic football game. It's a perspective that isn't helpful to any discussion.

Even if Poe didn't comment directly about Holdo's poor leadership, it's fairly obvious he didn't think she's a good leader.

[Civil War Man]

The problem is that from what I recall, Poe's criticism of Poe was never some nebulous "she's a bad leader"- that's a case members of the fandom constructed to condemn Holdo and exonerate Poe. Poe's actual criticism of Holdo was basically that she rubbed him the wrong way based on their initial encounter, dissatisfaction that she didn't tell him the plan, and then concluding that she was a coward/traitor, which her final actions do exonerate her for.

Poe's problem with Holdo wasn't just "Boo hoo she was mean to me." He wasn't dissatisfied that she wasn't telling him what the plan was. He was terrified because by all appearances she had no plan. At one point, he asks her point blank to just confirm that a plan existed, and she responded by saying something vague about hope, which basically comes across as an attempt to weasel out of admitting there isn't one.

Based on that, for all Poe knew Holdo's plan was Step 1: Do not deviate at all from this unsustainable course, Step 2: ????, Step 3: We all get saved by space magic. His superiors convinced him that they were dead set on a course that was guaranteed to get everyone killed, and in his desperation he attempted a Hail Mary that backfired spectacularly and got a lot of people killed.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that from what I recall, Poe's criticism of Poe was never some nebulous "she's a bad leader"- that's a case members of the fandom constructed to condemn Holdo and exonerate Poe. Poe's actual criticism of Holdo was basically that she rubbed him the wrong way based on their initial encounter, dissatisfaction that she didn't tell him the plan, and then concluding that she was a coward/traitor, which her final actions do exonerate her for.

Can you stop bringing up what the fandom said? It really doesn't matter what the fandom thinks, because I don't think we should care about what the fandom thinks. You have a bad habit of turning this discussion into a tribalistic football game. It's a perspective that isn't helpful to any discussion.

Even if Poe didn't comment directly about Holdo's poor leadership, it's fairly obvious he didn't think she's a good leader.

The point is, if you're going to make the case that the film fails to vindicate Holo because her actions do not address Poe's issues with her, then what exactly those issues are matters, beyond some vague "she's a bad leader".

[Jub]

The point is, if you're going to make the case that the film fails to vindicate Holo because her actions do not address Poe's issues with her, then what exactly those issues are matters, beyond some vague "she's a bad leader".

Even if she felt Poe's issue was stupid and petty if she was his direct superior she needed to deal with, in this case, that could have been done by telling Poe that she had a plan that required secrecy or by simply giving him something 'useful' to do. If there was supposed to be an officer between her and Poe, an officer we never see on screen, she should have had that officer deal with Poe's issue. If she really felt that Poe was out of line and given the emergency at hand, she could have had Poe put into the brig until the end of the battle.

Given that Holdo did none of these things it doesn't matter what Poe's issue was.

[ray245]

The point is, if you're going to make the case that the film fails to vindicate Holo because her actions do not address Poe's issues with her, then what exactly those issues are matters, beyond some vague "she's a bad leader".

Those issues are her personnel management skills, the most basic level of leadership. All the strategy, bravery a leader possess is useless if the leader cannot manage the people under their command.

If the film wants to vindicate Holdo, then it needs to show Holdo is good at those stuff. Have Holdo making good man-management judgement right from the get-go, and abandon the whole subversion of expectations if need be.

Holdo doesn't need to be a bad leader for the Poe arc to work. She can be inspiring, make the best decision in man-managing Poe, and Poe can still be a complete idiot. The arc is about Poe being an idiot, not about Poe AND Holdo both being bad at leading the resistance.

I see this whole issue as a case of Rian Johnson trying to be too clever for his own good, and needlessly create problems for himself. It's very bad writing

Even if she felt Poe's issue was stupid and petty if she was his direct superior she needed to deal with, in this case, that could have been done by telling Poe that she had a plan that required secrecy or by simply giving him something 'useful' to do. If there was supposed to be an officer between her and Poe, an officer we never see on screen, she should have had that officer deal with Poe's issue. If she really felt that Poe was out of line and given the emergency at hand, she could have had Poe put into the brig until the end of the battle.

Given that Holdo did none of these things it doesn't matter what Poe's issue was.

If Holdo thinks Poe is undermining her authority, she has every right to throw Poe into the brig to safeguard the resistance. The fact that she didn't and let him wander around the whole ship is her responsibility.

I don't think TRR understands what does responsibility mean for a leader. As a leader, you have authority to punish and control the people under your command. That includes giving you the right to fire someone or in a military context, throw someone into military jail, brig and etc. If she didn't make full use of her authority to punish Poe, then she's responsible for Poe fucking things up.

Leaders don't just take credit for the achievement of people under their command. They are expected to bear responsibilities for their fuck-ups.

[The Romulan Republic]

Um... I have repeatedly and in multiple threads said that Holdo was at fault for not having Poe thrown in the brig after his tantrum on the bridge.

That said, it is pretty warped to basically say "Holdo is responsible for everything Poe does wrong, including mutinying against her". It basically means you are arguing that there is no possible outcome to a Holdo vs. Poe conflict where Holdo is not the one to blame. So it feels like you are stacking the deck somewhat here.

[FaxModem1]

Um... I have repeatedly and in multiple threads said that Holdo was at fault for not having Poe thrown in the brig after his tantrum on the bridge.

That said, it is pretty warped to basically say "Holdo is responsible for everything Poe does wrong, including mutinying against her". It basically means you are arguing that there is no possible outcome to a Holdo vs. Poe conflict where Holdo is not the one to blame. So it feels like you are stacking the deck somewhat here.

Are you familiar with the concept of 'passing the buck'? The issue is, when you're in charge, and you have no superiors over you, the buck stops here. Holdo can't pass the buck. She is to blame if a subordinate fails on her watch. Same way that Picard is to blame in Generations for personally going down to the planet, put a potentially compromised crew member(Geordi) have free reign on the ship, and Riker's leadership put Troi at the helm, who crashed the ship in his absence. It's part of leadership, and Picard should have faced consequences for it. Same way that Holdo was responsible for the crew and ships of the Resistance, and didn't account for their morale in her decision making.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just asking, how far do you take that reasoning? Because at some point you are essentially arguing that anything that goes wrong, even things outsider her control, are Holdo's fault, and that she automatically loses any dispute because its her fault the dispute is happening.

As I said, I don't disagree that she should have exercised more discipline over Poe when it became clear that he was becoming mutinous.

[FaxModem1]

I'm just asking, how far do you take that reasoning? Because at some point you are essentially arguing that anything that goes wrong, even things outsider her control, are Holdo's fault, and that she automatically loses any dispute because its her fault the dispute is happening.

As I said, I don't disagree that she should have exercised more discipline over Poe when it became clear that he was becoming mutinous.

In a court martial, what a reasonable and rational commander was capable of doing at the time. For instance, a reasonable and rational commander would brief their subordinates on the mission, and on their retreat, and for what reasons unless security reasons prevented them from doing so. In which case, they would brief the crew on the need for security. Failure to do either is not reasonable leadership. And even under security, they would give as many details as possible to prevent panic and to ensure that subordinates can take over the mission in case they are incapacitated. Or give out plausible lies to assuage the crew's concerns. They can also point out potential flaws in your plans and improve them, helping improving the strength of a plan.

A reasonable commander would also, as mentioned before, try and utilize their people to the best of their ability. Maybe Poe, or people under his command know something about the area, maybe they don't. Maybe they know something about First Order sensor capabilities, maybe they don't. Maybe they know possible contacts that they can get for help(such as Maz, for instance). Maybe they can help get objectives done quicker just by some technical knowledge they have, or just by being another pair of hands. Failure to try and even attempt to utilize these potential resources is worsening their chances.

This is why I don't fault Leia as much as I do Holdo. She does let her crew know they're going to find and establish another base before she is incapacitated, giving Holdo the details and the rest of the crew the broadstrokes(establish a base). Holdo doesn't even tell her crew that they are doing that. Instead, she is keeping their objectives disguised, for unknown reasons to the crew. And because most of her crew are human, they can and do react with panic at the thought of meaninglessly going to their deaths for no real reason. This leads to mutiny and desertion. That's why she is at fault, as giving Poe broadstrokes without giving him details might make him more amenable to helping, and prevent him from panicking.

It's also why people aren't saying Holdo should have locked up Poe as soon as he asked her a question, because his actions regarding Holdo were reasonable with the information he had, due to her lack of communication to her subordinates.

[RogueIce]

I'm just asking, how far do you take that reasoning? Because at some point you are essentially arguing that anything that goes wrong, even things outsider her control, are Holdo's fault, and that she automatically loses any dispute because its her fault the dispute is happening.

As I said, I don't disagree that she should have exercised more discipline over Poe when it became clear that he was becoming mutinous.

If it was reasonably within their purview or as a result of expected training/competence that their subordinates should possess, essentially.

Take the example of the Captain of a ship which crashes into something. Even if the Captain was not on watch and asleep in his stateroom when it happened, he's responsible. Why? Because he's supposed to make sure that only qualified members of the crew are handling the ship, and that their qualifications are up to date. If the ship is navigating somewhere tricky, he's expected to have the presence of mind to be there to assist if need be. If something becomes tricky unexpectedly, the crew should be trained enough to avoid the collision, and to know they should call the Captain up for assistance in such a case.

In Holdo's case, she knew Poe had serious concerns about their future actions during a crisis situation. These concerns were pretty valid and evidently not just held by Poe alone, given Rose stopping deserters at the escape pods. She did absolutely nothing to address these concerns. Whether Poe was her direct subordinate or not, she should have done something to address his entirely valid and legitimate concerns: either doing so herself if Poe was a direct report or getting a subordinate officer to talk with Poe if he was further down the chain. Furthermore, a good leader knows their people. Poe's concerns were urgent and the situation was critical. Given his recent actions, she should have expected that he wasn't the type to just accept "do nothing" as a valid course of action. So she should have a) done something other than dismiss him or b) had him locked up. Especially since, to put it generously, exceeding orders is something he's kind of known to do and just got demoted for it. That she takes no action whatsoever to make sure Poe doesn't go cowboy is a failing on her part. Especially since we see at least some evidence that other members of the crew are getting desperate and discipline is breaking down (deserters at the escape pods).

She's a bad leader. Poe is a bad subordinate too, but that doesn't mean Holdo gets off the hook for being a poor leader herself.

But let's flip it around: Why do you think Holdo is a good leader? So far it seems like most of your rebuttals are to basically shift responsibility off of Holdo and entirely on to Poe. Ignoring that her lack of leadership pretty much lead up to Poe doing what he did; had she handled things better, it's entirely likely his little mutiny wouldn't have happened. Poe being absolutely wrong in choosing to mutiny does not absolve Holdo for her leadership failings that sent him down that path in the first place.

I should point out that yes, we can blame her for the mutiny as well. That Poe found officers and crew willing to take up arms against their commander in the first place is plenty of evidence that good order and discipline was breaking down severely aboard the Raddus. Holdo didn't just fail Poe here.

[The Romulan Republic]

To be clear, I don't actually think Holdo is a great leader or anything. I think she's demonstrated to be a brave, loyal, compassionate individual and personally skilled as a pilot and fighter, but is probably a mediocre fleet commander (high end of average at best) who'd have probably done better in another position, but who is judged overly harshly for failing to perfectly handle an impossible situation. If I sound like I always take her side, its because I'm trying to provide some balance to the overwhelmingly negative way in which she tends to be portrayed.

I do dispute that Holdo's lack of leadership is the sole cause for Poe's mutiny, as Poe made up his mind very quickly to go behind her back and antagonize her, and showed little inclination to give her the benefit of the doubt. I also don't think you can use the presence of desertions or mutiny as proof that Holdo was a bad leader. In normal situations, yes, that would be a valid argument, but frankly the situation in TLJ was so absurdly bad that I would expect to see crumbling moral under any leader.

That's part of the problem. Holdo is being judged almost entirely on her performance in probably the worst situation any canon fleet commander has ever found themselves in. Realistically, I'm skeptical that Ackbar or Leia would have done much better. And again, I point to the fact that there were multiple desertions almost immediately after command transferred from Holdo to Leia- arguably too fast for them to plausibly be a response to Holdo's leadership in the film.

[FaxModem1]

Devil's advocate: the crew hears that Holdo is in charge, and being experienced with her leadership, start running for the escape pods.

[ray245]

I'm just asking, how far do you take that reasoning? Because at some point you are essentially arguing that anything that goes wrong, even things outsider her control, are Holdo's fault, and that she automatically loses any dispute because its her fault the dispute is happening.

As I said, I don't disagree that she should have exercised more discipline over Poe when it became clear that he was becoming mutinous.

The burdens of command and leadership are heavy. It's why not everyone can be a leader and why good leaders are valued so highly. Until you learn what being a leader actually entails, you should not have the right to lead or command others.

Every effective organisation does this to an extend. Otherwise a poor leader will continue to stay in power and lead the people or organisation down a wrong path. In a military context, when a bad decision can be a matter of life and death, leaders are not allowed to hide or find excuses if their subordinate messed up.

I find it hard to understand why you seem quite incapable of understanding this, when it is one of the most important lessons people teach about leadership. Otherwise, the leader will earn the jealously of people if all they did was to earn the credit for the actions of their subordinates but bear none of the responsibility if things went wrong.

Because if you allow a leader to find excuse, boy, will they find all sort of excuse to pass the buck to someone else. Then no one becomes responsible for making sure things don't go wrong.

To be clear, I don't actually think Holdo is a great leader or anything. I think she's demonstrated to be a brave, loyal, compassionate individual and personally skilled as a pilot and fighter, but is probably a mediocre fleet commander (high end of average at best) who'd have probably done better in another position, but who is judged overly harshly for failing to perfectly handle an impossible situation. If I sound like I always take her side, its because I'm trying to provide some balance to the overwhelmingly negative way in which she tends to be portrayed.

I do dispute that Holdo's lack of leadership is the sole cause for Poe's mutiny, as Poe made up his mind very quickly to go behind her back and antagonize her, and showed little inclination to give her the benefit of the doubt. I also don't think you can use the presence of desertions or mutiny as proof that Holdo was a bad leader. In normal situations, yes, that would be a valid argument, but frankly the situation in TLJ was so absurdly bad that I would expect to see crumbling moral under any leader.

That's part of the problem. Holdo is being judged almost entirely on her performance in probably the worst situation any canon fleet commander has ever found themselves in. Realistically, I'm skeptical that Ackbar or Leia would have done much better. And again, I point to the fact that there were multiple desertions almost immediately after command transferred from Holdo to Leia- arguably too fast for them to plausibly be a response to Holdo's leadership in the film.

Leaders are chosen because they can lead people under stress. If they can't, then they should step down and pass it to someone else who can do the job well.

If you are someone who likes to shift responsibility, then you should never be a leader.




Here's a question I really want to ask you. Why do you think it is OK for a leader to not bear full responsibility? To what end does your view serve?

[FaxModem1]

I do dispute that Holdo's lack of leadership is the sole cause for Poe's mutiny, as Poe made up his mind very quickly to go behind her back and antagonize her, and showed little inclination to give her the benefit of the doubt. I also don't think you can use the presence of desertions or mutiny as proof that Holdo was a bad leader. In normal situations, yes, that would be a valid argument, but frankly the situation in TLJ was so absurdly bad that I would expect to see crumbling moral under any leader.

The issue is that other crew members join Poe's mutiny, or are deserting of their own accord. Holdo, if a qualified leader at all, should be taking steps to rectify that, or assigning someone to rectify it as she deals with the situation with the First Order fleet and her plans for evacuation.

That's part of the problem. Holdo is being judged almost entirely on her performance in probably the worst situation any canon fleet commander has ever found themselves in. Realistically, I'm skeptical that Ackbar or Leia would have done much better. And again, I point to the fact that there were multiple desertions almost immediately after command transferred from Holdo to Leia- arguably too fast for them to plausibly be a response to Holdo's leadership in the film.

Losing two ships(and their captains) did not improve that stance. Those were avoidable outcomes, and worsened morale, as well as the resources said ships could have brought to the table if they weren't fleeing with the Raddus. That reflects badly on her, as she was well within her capabilities to avoid those outcomes. This either shows lack of concern, competence, and/or reflection on her part.

And people in crisis situations, as noted in the Army manual I showed you, become malleable and willing to take orders, if you show leadership in such a situation, their morale and service will improve. Yes, Holdo was dealt a bad hand. She made it worse by her primary plan being the destruction of all three ships and the deaths of at least two captains. As well potentially the deaths of the entire Resistance due to the superior capabilities of the First Order's sensors based on the condition that Rose's cloaks would be able to pass detection. We don't even know if those cloaks were field tested prior to this mission.

[Gandalf]

There's a point. Poe's actions at the start of the film cost the Resistance their entire bombing fleet, to little demonstrable gain. Presumably Leia knew of his popularity, so why didn't she have him locked away in some brig? Like Luke with the Jedi school, is she so full of that Skywalker hubris?

How much of the Resistance is the Leia cult?

[FaxModem1]

There's a point. Poe's actions at the start of the film cost the Resistance their entire bombing fleet, to little demonstrable gain. Presumably Leia knew of his popularity, so why didn't she have him locked away in some brig? Like Luke with the Jedi school, is she so full of that Skywalker hubris?

How much of the Resistance is the Leia cult?

Either A. Leia didn't have anybody else to use as a fighter jock, since the Resistance is so pitiful, or B. Poe is so popular for destroying Starkiller base that he's more useful as a propaganda tool. Or, C. potentially, it was of enough gain to the fleet that she didn't deem it worthy of imprisoning Poe, since the dreadnought's destruction made the Resistance's survival more possible in their fleeing.

Pick your poison.

EDIT: Or D. Leia's dialogue in the film with Poe seems to have her grooming him for leadership, and she wants him to start thinking as she would in such situations.

[Knife]

3) Poe isn't responsible for the bomber fleet, the squadron commander of the bomber fleet is responsible for that. The General who thought the paper mache bombers were ok for the mission were responsible for that. The General who signed off on the plan of the mission were responsible for that. If anything, Poe turned a shit storm into a win.

[The Romulan Republic]

3) Poe isn't responsible for the bomber fleet, the squadron commander of the bomber fleet is responsible for that. The General who thought the paper mache bombers were ok for the mission were responsible for that. The General who signed off on the plan of the mission were responsible for that. If anything, Poe turned a shit storm into a win.

Which kind of ignores that the bombers never were meant to be used that way, no one signed off on it- it was just Poe's idiot decision. That's kind of the whole point of the scene. And Poe pretty clearly is in command of both the bombers and fighters in that scene.

If you mean that the bomber squadron's commander should have ignored Poe's decision and followed Leia's/the original plan... yes, I agree completely. But it's really absurd how the one aspect of TLJ that even critical fans seem willing to go to great lengths to justify is Poe's idiocy. Why do people go to great lengths to shift the blame to exonerate Poe, but not for Holdo or anyone else's?

[Jub]

Which kind of ignores that the bombers never were meant to be used that way,

Can you prove that statement?

If you mean that the bomber squadron's commander should have ignored Poe's decision and followed Leia's/the original plan... yes, I agree completely. But it's really absurd how the one aspect of TLJ that even critical fans seem willing to go to great lengths to justify is Poe's idiocy. Why do people go to great lengths to shift the blame to exonerate Poe, but not for Holdo or anyone else's?

Maybe because Poe only lost a few dozen bombers for a Dreadnought whereas Holdo lost 3 capital ships, and thousands of lives to manage the same.