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

111–120 of 129 posts

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

#111

Post by abwizz »

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…

> 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.

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

#113

Post by thumbuddy »

warner25 wrote: post #44

It's interesting to see civilians looking to the military for leadership and management ideas. I'm a career Army officer, and when I was a young officer I looked to civilian books and other resources for management advice. Over the years, however, I've come appreciate more what the Army has written on the topic. Here's the current (2019) version of the Army's doctrine on leadership, if anyone wants to see how it has…

As someone who has nothing to do with the army/military. There's two principals that I've always liked about it, maybe more but two stand out.

1. No one gets left behind. 2. People work together for mission wins and mutual survival.

I have had a rough time in my professional career finding either of those at places of employment even in small bits. my latest job being the best at it but still struggling sometimes.

Maybe that gets romanticized a bit in books and movies, but I think companies would be way more successful with more people operating on those principals.

US industry teach us to fiercely compete, be an individual, destroy our competition. US military says almost the exact opposite barring that the competition is outside your group. Somehow these are both the best but seem to be at complete odds with one another.

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

#114

Post by ngc248 »

warner25 wrote: post #44

It's interesting to see civilians looking to the military for leadership and management ideas. I'm a career Army officer, and when I was a young officer I looked to civilian books and other resources for management advice. Over the years, however, I've come appreciate more what the Army has written on the topic. Here's the current (2019) version of the Army's doctrine on leadership, if anyone wants to see how it has…

What I feel is there may be some princples of leadership which overlap, but Military and Civilian leadership is essentially different.

In the military the lower ranks are mostly trained with drills to follow orders unquestionningly. The creativity is mostly left to Specops/Intelligence.

In the civilian world, even the lower ranks get to at least debate.

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

#115

Post by dang »

pdonis wrote: post #72
scrum-treats wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We evidently don't have enough common ground to have a useful discussion. You are making huge, sweeping statements based on nothing. I see no point in further engagement with you.

Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. It's tedious and not what this site is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#116

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #56
pdonis wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[flagged]

You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.

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

#117

Post by dang »

scrum-treats wrote: post #57
pdonis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh.

>> You've tricked the brain into believing a specific version of reality that is not objective reality > Whereas civilians, of course, have a completely accurate view of objective reality with no illusions? It is to laugh. No. It's just different; in some ways radically different than the niche reality of "military." .... That's the point. Are you still in the military because you are sending clear signals that you a…

> you are not in control of your own mind

Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, please avoid perpetuating flamewars - we don't want those here, and you did it quite badly, and a lot, in this thread. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935261.

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

#118

Post by nunez »

psunavy03 wrote: post #99
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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!

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

#120

Post by scrum-treats »

dang wrote: post #116
scrum-treats wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules in the future, we'd appreciate it.

> You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack.

Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models.

> We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.

I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results.

Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN?

Thanks very much!

Post reply on HN