I think they are both equally important. I don't think you can be a leader without being a follower. I find it hard to follow someone who is a leader, but not a follower. What I mean is that in the purest sense a leader commands (and sometimes demands) authority and can be unwilling to listen to others.

What if an individual is put into a leadership position for their first time? We've all had that junior PO2/1, Chief and/or JO who had never been in a true leadership position. If that individual is a leader in the purest sense, that individual will be less likely to take guidance from those who have been in leadership positions, especially if that person is junior in rank to them regardless of that junior person's history of leadership. JOs can be a prime example.

The majority of JOs that I have had the pleasure of serving with were both leaders and followers. They came to me as a person with more Navy and/or life experience for help when they weren't sure of what to do. In other words, they came to me looking for mentoring. Me mentoring them is a classic case of the leader becoming the follower. I've also met JOs (a minority) who thought they knew it all. You could tell who's division on the ship they belonged to because the PO1s and/or Chiefs would always complain that the DIVO (JO) didn't know what it took to do a job (being nice of course as this is a G rated posting).

Don't get me wrong that I'm suggesting that leaders must always be followers because sometimes the leader must lead regardless. It can be a fine balance knowing when to be the leader and when to be the follower. I think that the most effective leaders know the difference and are willing to employ both their leader side and their follower side.