41–50 of 129 posts
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…
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…
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, sc…
Here's the current (2019) version of the Army's doctrine on leadership, if anyone wants to see how it has evolved and what's being taught today: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN20039-ADP_6-...
And here's the companion guide for "developing leaders:" https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN36735-FM_6-2...
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…
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.
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…
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 l…
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.
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...
The infantry is its own beast. But most of DoD is not the infantry.
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…
For one thing, their principal mission is to deal with the unexpected, and come out on top.
That's nothing to sneeze at.
In the civilian world, first responders and mobsters are probably analogous, as most corporate leadership is about consistency and predictability.
First responders, however, only have goals to stop the unexpected, or repair damage. Mobsters figure out how to take advantage of the unexpected, and maybe make some hay from it.
I suspect you could relate.
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…
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.
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…
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 cha…