Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

armyoe.files.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#11

Post by bjelkeman-again »

As someone who has led companies for several decades, the foreword bullet points aren’t half bad (in my words, the context is different and not everything translates directly, mistakes aren’t so often deadly in business) :

- know your business

- teach your team

- be a good listener

- treat your team with dignity and respect

- know the fundamentals of your business

- set a good example

- establish a positive culture

I went through a year of officers training in the Swedish army before my first job, after a year as a conscript. (Quite a different thing than other armed forces, Sweden being neutral, and no prospect of going to war on foreign soil, for example). I probably learned more things about leading people in those years, than I did in the following ten years. Not everyone was a good teacher, but there were some excellent leadership teachers there.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#12

Post by zdw »

Another good book in this vein is "Turn the ship around!": https://davidmarquet.com/turn-the-ship-around-book/

Which is written by a navy submarine captain, about how he turned one of the lowest performing crews into a high performing crews that went on to become leaders elsewhere.

It really spoke to helping align motivation, and making a path forward for success, which actually is somewhat easier in the military because much of the career progression is study/competency based (at least around submarine tasks). This well defined progression is less so outside the military, which I think is why we see so much job hopping.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#14

Post by intelVISA »

mter wrote: post #3

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…

> 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.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#15

Post by dctoedt »

mter wrote: post #3

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…

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

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#16

Post by morkalork »

monocasa wrote: post #4
mter wrote: post #3

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…

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…

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.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#17

Post by aethros »

scrum-treats wrote: post #9
mter wrote: post #3

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…

[flagged]

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.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#18

Post by CamperBob2 »

mter wrote: post #3

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…

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.

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#19

Post by mter »

dctoedt wrote: post #15
mter wrote: post #3

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…

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

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-w...

Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

#20

Post by scrum-treats »

aethros wrote: post #17
scrum-treats wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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 ac…

> 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."

Post reply on HN