8 ms·

Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously because of the UCMJ and because unhappy people can't quit with serious repercussions.

by mter 3y ago

Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously because of the UCMJ and because unhappy people can't quit with serious repercussions. Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from you, and there is a steady stream of bodies to use. Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done.

scrum-treats 3y ago
[flagged]
- aethros 3y ago
  There's an argument to be made that the military employs socialization tactics often found in cults, such as group mentality--I'll be the first to concede that. But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense. The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. There's been a lot of social science put into the military on how best to accomplish that. Much of that science is on leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams. A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term. The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.
  - scrum-treats 3y ago
    > But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense. Is it? > The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. Is it? > The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly. The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. There are higher levels of leadership that use more sophisticated mechanisms, and there are great leaders in the military no doubt. For sure I can say this. Some of the most intelligent, mindful persons in leadership hold advanced military positions. However, the majority of military is not in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in the military do not fall in this category of exceptionalism. This is to say, the majority of people are located at or near the bottom. And guess what happens at or near the bottom? "Continuous exploitation of lower level persons." And when those persons leave the military and are given leadership positions in corporate institutions, guess how they lead? You already described it: "... overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term."
    - pdonis 3y ago
      > Is it? The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. > The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then.
      - scrum-treats 3y ago
        > The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. At its very core, the purpose is to reduce individuality and to reprogram a person's brain and body to fit the characteristics of military use cases; to make replicable bodies fit for military use. There's tons of declassified docs that describe this process, at least since WWI. And then if you study history then you'll know this has been a topic of investigation for thousands of years. This is why there is an "adjustment period" and persons are strongly suggested to under go deprogramming before returning to civilian life. You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality, and there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service. It's quite taxing physically, mentally and emotionally. You know, like a cult... Because it's a cult. This is not a new phenomenon by any stretch.
        pdonis 3y ago
        > While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know. As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.
monocasa 3y ago
There's also the opposite pressure. As a CO, you can demote people, but they're still under your command. To be effective you can't just rely on shedding dead weight like in the civilian sector. You're stuck with the subordinates you get more or less, so to hit your goals you practically have to actually invest in your subordinates, mainly by coaching and mentoring them. And you can quiet quit in the military just as easily as on the civilian side, maybe easier. For the most part you won't get demoted for not giving a shit. You just won't get any more promotions, and you might eventually be not given another contract if you suck enough. There's shit leadership in every org, but I've found former military leadership to have a little bit better batting average on internal team growth than purely civilian leadership.
- morkalork 3y ago
  How would you compare the whole chain of command aspect? I worked with an ex-military guy in a small company (just under 100 headcount size) and his ideas about how a rigid hierarchy was supposed to work often clashed with the horizontal/start-up style of management everyone else had.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    I've seen that too. Especially in situations where a team has specialized skills, and are not easily replaceable. If you treat them as subordinates instead of peers who need direction on the big picture (and reminders that profit has to be balanced with cool work ideas), then you will sink the ship. But what I usually see happen is someone else in management sees what is going on and gives them a silent demotion with pay. They get sidelined before they cause too much damage amd everyone just ignores them until they mess up bad enough to let go without worrying about a lawsuit.
  - csa 3y ago
    > How would you compare the whole chain of command thing? Not op, but… It depends on how “ex” this vet was and what his MOS was. Specifically: 1. A lot of modern military leadership (esp. in the battlefield) is about giving the folks on the frontlines (figuratively and literally) the information and autonomy they need to make the best decisions for the mission. Some older vets may not have experienced this shift. 2. Some MOSes lend themselves to a strict hierarchy and SOPs, often because it’s just prudent for the job at hand. Others are not as highly structured.
jelkand 3y ago
I think you would be surprised. There are a lot of concepts that cross over—servant leadership, trusting subordinates with expertise, setting expectations of “what” or “why” and letting your subordinates figure out “how.” Your point is valid that those in the military can’t just quit, but there is a world of difference between motivated and trusting subordinates and those just going through the motions because they have to. (Same story in software engineers!) Now, to be clear, the military regularly and routinely fails at the leadership principles they proscribe, but the principles are still good.
batch12 3y ago
If you can't lead effectively, you can't complete the mission. Fear only gets you so far.
sublinear 3y ago
> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. I disagree. There are plenty of workers who don't respond productively to being treated well. Many take advantage and play games to avoid work. Being nice doesn't change anything. What gets things done is spelling everything out. All roles and responsibilities are crystal clear. Commitment to agreed upon schedules and plans is required. Only then can people be genuinely happy with their team. Leave the sentiments and emotion out of it. Fairness and transparency are the way. Anything less creates an environment of toxic positivity and stupid power struggles.
- watwut 3y ago
  Schedules and plans in software engineering bring neither clearness nor happiness.
  - sublinear 3y ago
    Damn I also disagree with this. Schedules are more than deadlines. As long as progress is being made and what's being delivered stays on a similar timeline with other dependent projects, it's fine. Plans are more than implementation details. If the solution meets requirements, it's fine.
beardyw 3y ago
> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. Yes, I'd call that management.
raptorraver 3y ago
Friend of mine said he has learned way more about leadership from boy scouts than from army.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  "What is the difference between the Cub Scouts and the military? Bzzzzzt! Cub Scouts don't have heavy artillery!" - _Good Morning Vietnam_
intelVISA 3y ago
> Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from you, and there is a steady stream of bodies to use. Seems to be working well for AWS and their notorious H1B platoons.
dctoedt 3y ago
Just curious: Have you served (in the military)?
- mter 3y ago
  Yes, 02-05, OEF/OIF 11b got out as an E4. I was incredibly unimpressed with military leadership. You can read about my old BC if you're interested: https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-wives-uproar/article_1d17dc0a-e089-5197-ad0b-a9767a3984f7.html https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-w...
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    Re your battalion commander: "Mrs. Colonel" — and for that matter "Mrs. E-9" — and their husbands are a longstanding problem, but as far as I could tell* in my day, it was just a minor irritant. No organization is flawless, and you'll find d[*]ckheads, with and without spousal attachments, in mid- and senior management in most walks of life. * Grew up in the USAF, served in the USN
  - monocasa 3y ago
    Oof, yeah, I don't blame you for having that opinion then. That tour/MOS is just about peak shit show from a leadership perspective.
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    This explains a lot. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but you're extrapolating what you saw to the entire military based on the experience of one junior enlisted member, which is . . . not going to lead to an accurate viewpoint. The infantry is its own beast. But most of DoD is not the infantry.
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    An E6 I knew started making some official complaints because a colonel was sleeping with his wife (also an E6). The colonel's wife sat him down and told him, "(the colonel) is going to make general soon" so you should just put up with it and stop causing problems.
CamperBob2 3y ago
And yet there's a wide gulf between the leadership effectiveness of the NATO-trained Ukrainian armed forces and their Russian opponents. In both armies, you can't quit without serious repercussions. Yet soldiers in one army punch well above their weight class, while the others dig in for dear life and lob artillery at random civilian areas. Leadership is why all armies are not the same, any more than corporations, schools, churches, or Scout troops are.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
HybridCurve 3y ago
This is a bit of a biased take. The military uses a purely authoritarian system of management which is entirely different from anything in a civilian occupation. There really is no free choice in an authoritarian system and failure to follow lawful orders results in strict penalties. Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely where this bias comes into play. Leadership in the military works different than in other institutions. It is one of the only systems that I know of where authority is bound with responsibility. As a leader you are held to account for your actions and the actions of your subordinates because of your authority over them(IMO police should be held to at least this standard if not higher as they are granted permission to assault, detain or use lethal force against anyone as they see fit). It is common for NCOs to be reprimanded for the failings of the subordinates because it is often characterized that the leader failed them because they did not train or oversee them properly. There is some fault tolerance built in (with leaders spot checking leaders below them by checking their subordinates) but the system will break down if you have multiple levels of failed leaders within the chain of command. The truth in the military though, is that this authority is mostly an illusion. There are many terrible leaders that do not understand this. They believe once you attain a position you are entitled to give whatever orders you like and that people cannot refuse them. This is true in civilian life as well as military. However, a good leader knows that their subordinates grant them authority over them. Understanding that, this is where much of the military leadership philosophy comes into play: lead by example, taking care of your team, morale, etc. These things are of much more critical importance in military roles because of the levels of risk, tension, and stress are often very high.
- gcoakes 3y ago
  > Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely where this bias comes into play. Additionally, good leaders in an authoritarian system can be more effective. It's just that no one wants to make the gamble for society at large. It's more or less necessary for grunts where ultimately someone will be mandating another endangers themselves. I don't think modern society has enough bloodthirsty people to field a military completely composed of willing participants. We do have enough that think they're bloodthirsty to field our "voluntary" forces.
aic5 3y ago
Agree, context is key here. Leadership ain't a one-size-fits-all deal. Military and civilian jobs are like apples and oranges at times. Military leaders gotta shape up their team with what they've got. In private business, bosses can usually swap folks in and out based on their performance. So, comparing these two is a bit like comparing apples to bowling balls. A leader's worth ain't just about their style—it's about getting results. The Military needs to run a tight ship, while a manager at a startup might want fresh ideas and risk-takers. Military folks might be better at building a team because they're drilled to be disciplined and unified. But that doesn't mean civilian leaders are lacking necessarily. It does not make sense to use the same tools in the two settings. Some folks have found ex-military bosses to be good at growing a team and their careers. There are good and bad leaders everywhere. Let's not box leaders into military or civilian corners, and judge 'em on their own merits and how effective they are.
fsckboy 3y ago
> Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously... ...unless you read it and think about it first. nor should blanket criticisms be leveled in the same circumstance.
wusher 3y ago
On the flip side, try leading a squad of four soldiers who don’t want to be there. You can’t fire them. You can’t demote them. If you rely on authoritarianism, what happens when they say “No”. Are you going to try to get them arrested court martialed because they refused an order to pick up brass? You’ll be laughed out of command. You have to motivate them and make them want to get the mission done. It’s far more challenging than any leadership I’ve done in the civilian world.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Sounds a bit like parenting!
  - psunavy03 3y ago
    There's the cliche about the military being a (gender-neutral) "brotherhood" as if anyone who serves automatically makes lifelong friends, forged in the fires of adversity, blah blah blah. The military actually is like a family for one big reason: you can't pick your family or your unit. Like it or not, you're stuck with both come hell or high water. And some of both are great, while others are toxic and dysfunctional.
Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]
infamouscow 3y ago
Lieutenants that "lead" the way you're imagining never see the rank of Captain. They typically receive an early separation with a general discharge that stick with them for life, or get reassigned to a desk where they remain until the end of their contract.
psunavy03 3y ago
As a veteran in technology with 20 years active and reserve service, this is 100 percent ignorant, prejudiced, and offensive. Typical arrogant take along the lines of "those poor military people only joined because they had no other options." Unhappy people also can't quit their civ jobs without serious repercussions. Losing your paycheck and medical is not nothing. And I can say that I've seen just as much stupidity and bad leadership in the private sector as I ever saw in uniform, as well as outstanding leadership in both. You sound like someone who either had a bad experience in uniform and is extrapolating that to the entire DoD, or you never served and you're spouting off what you read on the internet. Edit: I see it's the first. I'm sorry that happened to you, but this is still a very blinkered take that over-weights your own experiences as being applicable across the board.
pyrale 3y ago
> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. I have seen civilian managers actually succeed while having both unhappy teams and failed projects. I don't know the military enough to make a viable comparison, but I would certainly not say that most private companies have a good control of their management system. That being said, I have seen good managers too. But even then, their organizations (and, sometimes, themselves) had a lot of trouble replicating this success.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
This is incorrect post Vietnam The US is an all volunteer force and has to constantly and persistently provide a compelling alternative to other jobs - so in one sense, it's an employer like any other. If it were as domineering as you insinuate (it isn't) then nobody would sign up and/or we would be admitting very destitute or people with no options, which isn't the case.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  And of note . . . the majority of the US military comes from the middle three quintiles of income. It is literally a middle-class institution. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
  - nunez 3y ago
    This is extremely surprising and not surprising at the same time. On one hand, you hear about how active DoD recruiting is in Middle America and economically repressed neighborhoods. On the other hand, I've met several people from wealthy families who enlisted and enjoyed their time there. Thanks for the link!
daweyp 3y ago
[flagged]
toss1 3y ago
I worked with military leaders and grew up under them. They will tell you immediately that your take is 100% wrong. Here's what they told me about how that idea is just plain wrong. No one in the military gets compliance or advances by threat of UCMJ or other discipline. It ALL must be earned in front of your group. The leader is absolutely reliant on the members of his team and lead group, both for success of the mission and for his/her own position. Good leaders motivate those under their command by good example and good decisions. When this happens, everyone down the chain of command does their best to add value. When the commander gives a new directive. the 1st officer then steps up and starts adding details, and more all the way down the line to the lowest grunt. In contrast, the worst thing that can happen to a commander is that s/he loses the respect of their subordinates. Then, when s/he gives a new directive, the 1st officer and on down just say "yup, do what the commander said"; they do the absolute minimum and stop adding value. At that minute, the chain on down is fully f'kd and doomed to fail, along with that segment of the commander's career. And yet the commander can do zero about it. Everyone is 'making the required effort', and no one is breaking any rules. But no one is adding any value and the commander cannot get it done her/himself. And trying to invoke UCMJ threats just makes it backfire worse. That conclusion is easy to draw, but it is also exactly wrong. Which is why good military leaders often do exceptionally well when they move into the private sector.
sockaddr 3y ago
Yup. You can even put lead in their family’s water on base and there isn’t shit they can do about it. Leadership is easy in a system when broadly accepted ethical and moral norms don’t factor into your decision making.
ARandomerDude 3y ago
I can’t find the exact quote now but I once heard David Petraeus say something like: “The greatest myth civilians believe about the military is that you can just bark orders and people will follow them. The greatest myth the military believes about civilians is that you can just fire anyone at any time.” Now that I have been both a corporate software developer and a military officer, I’d say he was right.
LanceH 3y ago
You clearly don't know anything about the military. If you treat your subordinates like that, you can kiss your career good-bye. >Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion It doesn't work like that.
abwizz 3y ago
> no one can quit to get away from you can't help but think this is an essential part; if everybody is kindof stuck with each other, there is an incentive to make it work, somehow. if leaders can make a whishlist and then pick and choose, why would anyone invest more than to keep the apperance.

by mter 3y ago

scrum-treats 3y ago

[flagged]

aethros 3y ago
There's an argument to be made that the military employs socialization tactics often found in cults, such as group mentality--I'll be the first to concede that. But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense. The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. There's been a lot of social science put into the military on how best to accomplish that. Much of that science is on leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams. A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term. The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.
- scrum-treats 3y ago
  > But the notion that the military's 'objective' is the "continuous exploitation of lower level persons" is utter nonsense. Is it? > The objective of the U.S. Military is to fight and win wars. Is it? > The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly. The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. There are higher levels of leadership that use more sophisticated mechanisms, and there are great leaders in the military no doubt. For sure I can say this. Some of the most intelligent, mindful persons in leadership hold advanced military positions. However, the majority of military is not in the upper echelons of the power hierarchy. And the majority of leaders in the military do not fall in this category of exceptionalism. This is to say, the majority of people are located at or near the bottom. And guess what happens at or near the bottom? "Continuous exploitation of lower level persons." And when those persons leave the military and are given leadership positions in corporate institutions, guess how they lead? You already described it: "... overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term."
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > Is it? The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. > The military programs people, like hypnosis + operant conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli. Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then.
    - scrum-treats 3y ago
      > The only reason to even have a military is to have the ability to fight and win wars. If your military can't do that, it's not worth having at all. While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. > Is this based on personal experience? If so, how recent? My experience in the military is several decades old, but the above is not a good description of what I experienced then. It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. At its very core, the purpose is to reduce individuality and to reprogram a person's brain and body to fit the characteristics of military use cases; to make replicable bodies fit for military use. There's tons of declassified docs that describe this process, at least since WWI. And then if you study history then you'll know this has been a topic of investigation for thousands of years. This is why there is an "adjustment period" and persons are strongly suggested to under go deprogramming before returning to civilian life. You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality, and there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service. It's quite taxing physically, mentally and emotionally. You know, like a cult... Because it's a cult. This is not a new phenomenon by any stretch.
      - pdonis 3y ago
        > While it is one use case, it is not all use cases. Really? What other use cases are there for a military? > It is based on multitudes of studies in psychology, neuroscience, sociology, evolutionary anthropology, and the like. In other words, no, you have no personal experience to back up your claims. You should not presume to speak of what you do not know. As for the "cult" accusation, historially, militaries that work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.

monocasa 3y ago

There's also the opposite pressure. As a CO, you can demote people, but they're still under your command. To be effective you can't just rely on shedding dead weight like in the civilian sector. You're stuck with the subordinates you get more or less, so to hit your goals you practically have to actually invest in your subordinates, mainly by coaching and mentoring them. And you can quiet quit in the military just as easily as on the civilian side, maybe easier. For the most part you won't get demoted for not giving a shit. You just won't get any more promotions, and you might eventually be not given another contract if you suck enough. There's shit leadership in every org, but I've found former military leadership to have a little bit better batting average on internal team growth than purely civilian leadership.

morkalork 3y ago
How would you compare the whole chain of command aspect? I worked with an ex-military guy in a small company (just under 100 headcount size) and his ideas about how a rigid hierarchy was supposed to work often clashed with the horizontal/start-up style of management everyone else had.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  I've seen that too. Especially in situations where a team has specialized skills, and are not easily replaceable. If you treat them as subordinates instead of peers who need direction on the big picture (and reminders that profit has to be balanced with cool work ideas), then you will sink the ship. But what I usually see happen is someone else in management sees what is going on and gives them a silent demotion with pay. They get sidelined before they cause too much damage amd everyone just ignores them until they mess up bad enough to let go without worrying about a lawsuit.
- csa 3y ago
  > How would you compare the whole chain of command thing? Not op, but… It depends on how “ex” this vet was and what his MOS was. Specifically: 1. A lot of modern military leadership (esp. in the battlefield) is about giving the folks on the frontlines (figuratively and literally) the information and autonomy they need to make the best decisions for the mission. Some older vets may not have experienced this shift. 2. Some MOSes lend themselves to a strict hierarchy and SOPs, often because it’s just prudent for the job at hand. Others are not as highly structured.

jelkand 3y ago

I think you would be surprised. There are a lot of concepts that cross over—servant leadership, trusting subordinates with expertise, setting expectations of “what” or “why” and letting your subordinates figure out “how.” Your point is valid that those in the military can’t just quit, but there is a world of difference between motivated and trusting subordinates and those just going through the motions because they have to. (Same story in software engineers!) Now, to be clear, the military regularly and routinely fails at the leadership principles they proscribe, but the principles are still good.

batch12 3y ago

If you can't lead effectively, you can't complete the mission. Fear only gets you so far.

sublinear 3y ago

> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. I disagree. There are plenty of workers who don't respond productively to being treated well. Many take advantage and play games to avoid work. Being nice doesn't change anything. What gets things done is spelling everything out. All roles and responsibilities are crystal clear. Commitment to agreed upon schedules and plans is required. Only then can people be genuinely happy with their team. Leave the sentiments and emotion out of it. Fairness and transparency are the way. Anything less creates an environment of toxic positivity and stupid power struggles.

watwut 3y ago
Schedules and plans in software engineering bring neither clearness nor happiness.
- sublinear 3y ago
  Damn I also disagree with this. Schedules are more than deadlines. As long as progress is being made and what's being delivered stays on a similar timeline with other dependent projects, it's fine. Plans are more than implementation details. If the solution meets requirements, it's fine.

beardyw 3y ago

> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. Yes, I'd call that management.

raptorraver 3y ago

Friend of mine said he has learned way more about leadership from boy scouts than from army.

brightlancer 3y ago
"What is the difference between the Cub Scouts and the military? Bzzzzzt! Cub Scouts don't have heavy artillery!" - _Good Morning Vietnam_

intelVISA 3y ago

> Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion, no one can quit to get away from you, and there is a steady stream of bodies to use. Seems to be working well for AWS and their notorious H1B platoons.

dctoedt 3y ago

Just curious: Have you served (in the military)?

mter 3y ago
Yes, 02-05, OEF/OIF 11b got out as an E4. I was incredibly unimpressed with military leadership. You can read about my old BC if you're interested: https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-wives-uproar/article_1d17dc0a-e089-5197-ad0b-a9767a3984f7.html https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-w...
- dctoedt 3y ago
  Re your battalion commander: "Mrs. Colonel" — and for that matter "Mrs. E-9" — and their husbands are a longstanding problem, but as far as I could tell* in my day, it was just a minor irritant. No organization is flawless, and you'll find d[*]ckheads, with and without spousal attachments, in mid- and senior management in most walks of life. * Grew up in the USAF, served in the USN
- monocasa 3y ago
  Oof, yeah, I don't blame you for having that opinion then. That tour/MOS is just about peak shit show from a leadership perspective.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  This explains a lot. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but you're extrapolating what you saw to the entire military based on the experience of one junior enlisted member, which is . . . not going to lead to an accurate viewpoint. The infantry is its own beast. But most of DoD is not the infantry.
- GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
  An E6 I knew started making some official complaints because a colonel was sleeping with his wife (also an E6). The colonel's wife sat him down and told him, "(the colonel) is going to make general soon" so you should just put up with it and stop causing problems.

CamperBob2 3y ago

And yet there's a wide gulf between the leadership effectiveness of the NATO-trained Ukrainian armed forces and their Russian opponents. In both armies, you can't quit without serious repercussions. Yet soldiers in one army punch well above their weight class, while the others dig in for dear life and lob artillery at random civilian areas. Leadership is why all armies are not the same, any more than corporations, schools, churches, or Scout troops are.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago
[dead]

HybridCurve 3y ago

This is a bit of a biased take. The military uses a purely authoritarian system of management which is entirely different from anything in a civilian occupation. There really is no free choice in an authoritarian system and failure to follow lawful orders results in strict penalties. Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely where this bias comes into play. Leadership in the military works different than in other institutions. It is one of the only systems that I know of where authority is bound with responsibility. As a leader you are held to account for your actions and the actions of your subordinates because of your authority over them(IMO police should be held to at least this standard if not higher as they are granted permission to assault, detain or use lethal force against anyone as they see fit). It is common for NCOs to be reprimanded for the failings of the subordinates because it is often characterized that the leader failed them because they did not train or oversee them properly. There is some fault tolerance built in (with leaders spot checking leaders below them by checking their subordinates) but the system will break down if you have multiple levels of failed leaders within the chain of command. The truth in the military though, is that this authority is mostly an illusion. There are many terrible leaders that do not understand this. They believe once you attain a position you are entitled to give whatever orders you like and that people cannot refuse them. This is true in civilian life as well as military. However, a good leader knows that their subordinates grant them authority over them. Understanding that, this is where much of the military leadership philosophy comes into play: lead by example, taking care of your team, morale, etc. These things are of much more critical importance in military roles because of the levels of risk, tension, and stress are often very high.

gcoakes 3y ago
> Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely where this bias comes into play. Additionally, good leaders in an authoritarian system can be more effective. It's just that no one wants to make the gamble for society at large. It's more or less necessary for grunts where ultimately someone will be mandating another endangers themselves. I don't think modern society has enough bloodthirsty people to field a military completely composed of willing participants. We do have enough that think they're bloodthirsty to field our "voluntary" forces.

aic5 3y ago

Agree, context is key here. Leadership ain't a one-size-fits-all deal. Military and civilian jobs are like apples and oranges at times. Military leaders gotta shape up their team with what they've got. In private business, bosses can usually swap folks in and out based on their performance. So, comparing these two is a bit like comparing apples to bowling balls. A leader's worth ain't just about their style—it's about getting results. The Military needs to run a tight ship, while a manager at a startup might want fresh ideas and risk-takers. Military folks might be better at building a team because they're drilled to be disciplined and unified. But that doesn't mean civilian leaders are lacking necessarily. It does not make sense to use the same tools in the two settings. Some folks have found ex-military bosses to be good at growing a team and their careers. There are good and bad leaders everywhere. Let's not box leaders into military or civilian corners, and judge 'em on their own merits and how effective they are.

fsckboy 3y ago

> Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously... ...unless you read it and think about it first. nor should blanket criticisms be leveled in the same circumstance.

wusher 3y ago

On the flip side, try leading a squad of four soldiers who don’t want to be there. You can’t fire them. You can’t demote them. If you rely on authoritarianism, what happens when they say “No”. Are you going to try to get them arrested court martialed because they refused an order to pick up brass? You’ll be laughed out of command. You have to motivate them and make them want to get the mission done. It’s far more challenging than any leadership I’ve done in the civilian world.

quickthrower2 3y ago
Sounds a bit like parenting!
- psunavy03 3y ago
  There's the cliche about the military being a (gender-neutral) "brotherhood" as if anyone who serves automatically makes lifelong friends, forged in the fires of adversity, blah blah blah. The military actually is like a family for one big reason: you can't pick your family or your unit. Like it or not, you're stuck with both come hell or high water. And some of both are great, while others are toxic and dysfunctional.

Slava_Propanei 3y ago

[dead]

infamouscow 3y ago

Lieutenants that "lead" the way you're imagining never see the rank of Captain. They typically receive an early separation with a general discharge that stick with them for life, or get reassigned to a desk where they remain until the end of their contract.

psunavy03 3y ago

As a veteran in technology with 20 years active and reserve service, this is 100 percent ignorant, prejudiced, and offensive. Typical arrogant take along the lines of "those poor military people only joined because they had no other options." Unhappy people also can't quit their civ jobs without serious repercussions. Losing your paycheck and medical is not nothing. And I can say that I've seen just as much stupidity and bad leadership in the private sector as I ever saw in uniform, as well as outstanding leadership in both. You sound like someone who either had a bad experience in uniform and is extrapolating that to the entire DoD, or you never served and you're spouting off what you read on the internet. Edit: I see it's the first. I'm sorry that happened to you, but this is still a very blinkered take that over-weights your own experiences as being applicable across the board.

pyrale 3y ago

> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done. I have seen civilian managers actually succeed while having both unhappy teams and failed projects. I don't know the military enough to make a viable comparison, but I would certainly not say that most private companies have a good control of their management system. That being said, I have seen good managers too. But even then, their organizations (and, sometimes, themselves) had a lot of trouble replicating this success.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

This is incorrect post Vietnam The US is an all volunteer force and has to constantly and persistently provide a compelling alternative to other jobs - so in one sense, it's an employer like any other. If it were as domineering as you insinuate (it isn't) then nobody would sign up and/or we would be admitting very destitute or people with no options, which isn't the case.

psunavy03 3y ago
And of note . . . the majority of the US military comes from the middle three quintiles of income. It is literally a middle-class institution. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/demographics-us-military
- nunez 3y ago
  This is extremely surprising and not surprising at the same time. On one hand, you hear about how active DoD recruiting is in Middle America and economically repressed neighborhoods. On the other hand, I've met several people from wealthy families who enlisted and enjoyed their time there. Thanks for the link!

daweyp 3y ago

[flagged]

toss1 3y ago

I worked with military leaders and grew up under them. They will tell you immediately that your take is 100% wrong. Here's what they told me about how that idea is just plain wrong. No one in the military gets compliance or advances by threat of UCMJ or other discipline. It ALL must be earned in front of your group. The leader is absolutely reliant on the members of his team and lead group, both for success of the mission and for his/her own position. Good leaders motivate those under their command by good example and good decisions. When this happens, everyone down the chain of command does their best to add value. When the commander gives a new directive. the 1st officer then steps up and starts adding details, and more all the way down the line to the lowest grunt. In contrast, the worst thing that can happen to a commander is that s/he loses the respect of their subordinates. Then, when s/he gives a new directive, the 1st officer and on down just say "yup, do what the commander said"; they do the absolute minimum and stop adding value. At that minute, the chain on down is fully f'kd and doomed to fail, along with that segment of the commander's career. And yet the commander can do zero about it. Everyone is 'making the required effort', and no one is breaking any rules. But no one is adding any value and the commander cannot get it done her/himself. And trying to invoke UCMJ threats just makes it backfire worse. That conclusion is easy to draw, but it is also exactly wrong. Which is why good military leaders often do exceptionally well when they move into the private sector.

sockaddr 3y ago

Yup. You can even put lead in their family’s water on base and there isn’t shit they can do about it. Leadership is easy in a system when broadly accepted ethical and moral norms don’t factor into your decision making.

ARandomerDude 3y ago

I can’t find the exact quote now but I once heard David Petraeus say something like: “The greatest myth civilians believe about the military is that you can just bark orders and people will follow them. The greatest myth the military believes about civilians is that you can just fire anyone at any time.” Now that I have been both a corporate software developer and a military officer, I’d say he was right.

LanceH 3y ago

You clearly don't know anything about the military. If you treat your subordinates like that, you can kiss your career good-bye. >Anyone can make a team be productive when you can overwork people, if things don't get done you threaten to take their money and threaten a demotion It doesn't work like that.

abwizz 3y ago

> no one can quit to get away from you can't help but think this is an essential part; if everybody is kindof stuck with each other, there is an incentive to make it work, somehow. if leaders can make a whishlist and then pick and choose, why would anyone invest more than to keep the apperance.