31–40 of 129 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
If you don’t possess this, you are not a leader regardless of position, authority or how you “carry yourself”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at the top, but that's not the case. Furthermore, you don't need to be an exceptional leader to know that you need to care for your subordinates.
Yes, there are terrible leaders in the military. There are leaders who go through courses specifically geared for command positions, learn tools on good leadership, and then actively use techniques counter to the learned approach. However, there are terrible leaders everywhere, at all levels of command.
Very rarely are civilian leaders given dedicated time and instruction within their profession on how to manage their subordinates effectively, outside of say academia (e.g.: business school). The military has professional military education (PME) built into all levels of leadership from first line supervisors up to executive leadership (general officers)---The differences between military and civilian leadership is very apparent. Military veterans are often the most preferred candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools because of their leadership and performance.
> "Hard though it be to know people, there are ways.
First is to question them concerning right and wrong, to observe their ideas.
Second is to exhaust all their arguments, to see how they change.
Third is to consult with them about strategy, to see how perceptive they are.
Fourth is to announce that there is trouble, to see how brave they are.
Fifth is to get them drunk, to observe their nature.
Sixth is to present them with the prospect of gain, to see how modest they are.
Seventh is to give them a task to do within a specific time, to see how trustworthy they are."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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 desc…
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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. You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at the top, but that's not the case. Furthermore, you don't need to be an exceptional leader to know that you need to care for your subordinates. Yes, there are terrible leaders in the military.…
I'm not. I said this:
"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."
> However, there are terrible leaders everywhere, at all levels of command.
Yes, this is what I am saying.
> Military veterans are often the most preferred candidates, all things being equal, in recruiting pools because of their leadership and performance.
No. Military veterans are often preferred because it is easy to understand how you've been trained and how you will react. Because Operant Conditioning. Oftentimes it is not because you are the best, rather it is because you are predictable, and cheaper.
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…
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.
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…
...unless you read it and think about it first.
nor should blanket criticisms be leveled in the same circumstance.
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…
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.