The primary difference between army leadership and corporate leadership is that corporate "leadership" is more about saving their own position and job.
US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
61–70 of 129 posts
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 i…
> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only…
> (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain,
Why? What if someone feels neither respect nor disdain but mostly indifference?
What if someone treats each active member or vet as individuals, to be respected or disdained based upon their past and present behavior?
You're trying to swap one prejudice for another. So, no.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#63Earlier 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…
And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#64Nothing 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]
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 i…
> 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…
> > 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.
It's ironic that in a threat discussing leadership as a discipline, someone would make an appeal to "lived experience".
Unless someone here was with you, they don't know (nor do I) what your personal experience was. Similarly, you don't know everyone else's personal experiences. OTOH, we have these wonderful social sciences which go around and collect data from lots and lots of individuals, draw conclusions and publish them for other people to read and learn.
The data and conclusions might not be representative of your experience, but it's rubbish for you to handwave it away for your individual, subjective experience.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#66Nothing 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…
Friend of mine said he has learned way more about leadership from boy scouts than from army.
"What is the difference between the Cub Scouts and the military? Bzzzzzt! Cub Scouts don't have heavy artillery!" - _Good Morning Vietnam_
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#67Nothing 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 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.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#68It'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…
Quality leadership is very rare. I can understand looking anywhere for information / inspiration.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only…
> (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain, Why? What if someone feels neither respect nor disdain but mostly indifference? What if someone treats each active member or vet as individuals, to be respected or disdained based upon their past and present behavior? You're trying to swap one prejudice for another. So, no.
Indifference at an individual level is not necessarily a problem. Nor is exercising individual judgment.
However, as a matter of public policy, our current treatment of veterans, to put it bluntly, sucks. The VA is underfunded and overworked, and many vets do not get the kind of support they need and deserve after risking their lives. The only reason the government can get away with that is that there is no political pressure to fix it.
Re: US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's so much PTSD/cognitive dissonance that the human brain and body is now forced to endure post-service Combat is traumatic by its very nature. Of course many people who experience it are going to have PTSD, just like with any other traumatic experience. As for "cognitive dissonance", anyone who has been through a particular harrowing experience is going to have some difficulty dealing with people who not only…
> but devalue it because they don't understand it. No one is devaluing it. I'm certainly not. Rather it is highlighting that humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain. To take on the burden alone is quite a difficult and insurmountable task. For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world. This is…
> humans are vulnerable, by genetic design. And it requires actual help to reprogram the brain
Sure, I'm not disputing this at all. I'm just pointing out that this has nothing whatever to do with the military being a cult. It has to do with the nature of the military as an occupation. The military is certainly not the only occupation that has traumatic experiences as an expected part of service, and that needs to have a plan in place to deal with that.
> For your (a) and (b) you are definitely entitled to your opinion on how you want to be viewed and treated in the world.
It's not a matter of my or anyone's wanting to be viewed a certain way. It's a matter of understanding as a country why we have a military at all and what it is for, and holding our political leaders accountable for making appropriate use of the military and giving it the support it needs.