I agree with your assessment, Shane. I think Jameson's comparison of the different types of followers talked about in the Navy presentation with our three models of leadership in class is insightful.
One point I wanted to add to Jameson's analysis: Another thing that distinguishes "effective" followers from the other types of followers, aside from their dedication to a common cause, is their willingness to criticize (constructively) their leadership. In "alienated" relations between leaders and followers, or fearful relations, there is no room to criticize, as the followers either feel like they can have no impact on the leaders, or they are too fearful of the consequences of openly disagreeing with their leaders. This potentially critical relationship between leaders and followers is similar to the idea that Joe highlights in the post directly below this one about knowing how to "disagree agreeably." Such disagreement is only possible on the background assumption of mutual trust.
The Greeks had a term for the type of criticism that a follower must bring to bear upon his/her leaders: "parrhesia," which roughly translates as "frankness" or "courageous speech." (Some people translate it as "fearless speech"—but I think that's perhaps too loose of a translation.) Any ruler or leader that punishes followers for their "parrhesia" runs the risk of surrounding himself with flatterers, and he/she thus never hears the truth. I think this lack of frankness is one of the things going on in that first scene of Henry V. What do you all think?