Naturally, everyone knows why I thought of this topic, but I'm genuinely interested in addressing this as a wider idea.
I suggest that there is a spectrum of obedience, for lack of a better word. This would range from actively undermining leadership to wholehearted support even when it goes against a subordinates beliefs or instincts.
Lots of writings on leadership talk about the need to build consensus, to convince your executive staff to adopt and implement your vision. It's the difference between compliance and commitment, which are on the spectrum of obedience. Doing something because you have to is less powerful than doing something you want to.
Change leaders often have an uphill battle. If a new leader is brought in to make a radical move, sometimes there has to be housecleaning. Jim Collins refers to this as getting the right people on the bus. When you need to make a change, try to help people exit with dignity and grace. A leader in this situation has to be careful not to wipe out institutional knowledge in the process, however. You can't fire everyone and expect a business to function.
In my own career, I have had circumstances where I was a "resister". This took the form of slow-rolling policies that I didn't support, definitely pushing back on bosses directives that I didn't fully understand or agree with. The lightest form of this was simply not putting in extra hours to move something forward. I've certainly seen it with others, especially when it was unclear if management was really committed to a course of action or if it was just a whim or a fad.
Likewise, I've encountered resisters who were my subordinates. Sometimes I couldn't fully get them on board. If the situation were not mission critical, then I'd often let them pursue their own idea. Sometimes this would result in a good outcome, other times a bad one. Either way it becomes a learning opportunity for one of us. If it was critical, I would try to acknowledge that the person had valid concerns but I had to make the call because it was my responsibility. Sometimes, I would change out the person assigned that task. More often, I would select the person I assigned the task in the first place based on whether I thought they were aligned with my ideas.
I draw the line at actively undermining a person in authority. I take great care not to disparage or demean any superior. I would not be the person to post internal communication publicly in an effort to force superiors to act the way I wanted. If I were consistently finding myself not in alignment, I would resign. The exception would be superiors acting illegally or unethically.
I feel that I would be doing my company a disservice with blind obedience, and yet I generally respect my superiors and would generally follow their directives even if I mildly disagreed with them.
I wonder what others here have experienced. We have a wide variety of backgrounds, professions, and life experience for such a small group.