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

81–90 of 129 posts

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

#81

Post by AlbertCory »

It's great to see some folks with actual military experience here. I dodged the draft, being that it was a different era, but I did a lot of work with Operation Code (helping vets & their spouses get into tech).

Generally, there was nothing technical I could teach them. A few went to code schools (which OC helped make the GI Bill pay for) but mostly it was 4-year schools. Very, very few saw any combat.

One thing vets bring to the tablet that isn't that obvious is: they're cool under pressure. Even if they weren't in combat, solving problems with whatever's available is what they do. If I were picking people to keep my datacenter running, vets would be at the front of the line.

Also, I learned the stereotype that Marines eat crayons /s

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

#82

Post by thret »

Spooky23 wrote: post #36
monocasa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my experience senior NCOs are worth their weight in gold. Officers above a captain will vary. The bad ones are toxic.

My experience is that the majority of rank in IT is middle management and next to useless. The good ones leave for higher paid Defence contracting jobs as soon as they are promoted off the tools and the bad ones stay.

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

#83

Post by warner25 »

gumby wrote: post #55

Love that it starts here: > Demonstrate tactical and technical competence. > Know your business. Soldiers expect their leaders to be tactically and technically competent. Soldiers want to follow those leaders who are confident of their own abilities. To be confident a leader must first be competent. Trust between soldiers and their leaders is based on the secure knowledge that the leader is competent. (emphasis mine)…

I can only speak to the Army side of things, and we'd like this to be more true. The main problem is that we change jobs within the organization too often (like every year or two), and get pushed into management too early, to ever feel like an expert in something. I often feel like we're just pretending while people doing similar jobs in the civilian world (whether it's IT, aviation, medical, etc.) are doing them for real.

However, we also have a breadth of knowledge and longevity with the organization at-large (often starting at 17-18 years old, working our way up the ranks from there) that you probably don't find much in civilian organizations.

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

#84

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

austin-cheney wrote: post #76
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Military leadership has a great deal to recommend it. 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 figu…

As both an army officer (reserves) and a former corporate software developer the problems are different because the expectations are different. One might assume expectations would follow the problem state(s), the reality, but I promise this isn't the case. When I say that expectations are different our culture prepares us to start with a foundation of assumptions and our expectations grow and blossom from these assum…

Thanks for the detailed reply. I appreciate the insight.

I write fairly robust software. Not milspec, but a bit tougher than your average app.

I'm interested in mesh systems, but have found Meshtastic a bit too "raw" for my tastes (but maybe later, when I'm done with this project I'm working on), and the proprietary ones won't share their API.

The reason is that I'm interested in writing software that helps people help people. For free.

It's kind of shocking how hard that is to do. No one wants to support or encourage that kind of thing, so I generally have to go it fairly alone.

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

#85

Post by le-mark »

mter wrote: post #27
monocasa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You have to treat your NCO/officers like humans, but there's no need to care about your joes. Tell joe to get things done and they can't stop until it's done or they get extra duty. If they refuse/complain? Article 15. And no one is going to risk requesting court martial instead of just getting the article 15 so commands have pretty wide latitude to do whatever they want. > To be effective you can't just rely on shed…

> Tell joe to get things done and they can't stop until it's done or they get extra duty. If they refuse/complain? Article 15.

You can do that and have a lot of AWOLs and desertions; which does reflect poorly, eventually. It is common in high op tempo units to have a lot discipline issues though, because leaders have to push hard and months with no down time tears people down; mentally physically and emotionally.

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

#86

Post by scrum-treats »

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.

Do let me know if you want to engage with some scientific research, and/or declassified docs that describe exactly what I'm saying. Happy to share, because science and scientific method.

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

#87

Post by scrum-treats »

pdonis wrote: post #70
scrum-treats wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hav…

> I'm just pointing out that this has nothing whatever to do with the military being a cult.

So, it actually does. One must "de-program", meaning to unravel previous programming, such that the brain can learn a new wiring for existing. It's very much linked to the previous "training"/"programming" one endures via the military.

The military is not unique in this regard. We also see this with religious groups, self-help groups, and even in corporate environments. We're humans and we are vulnerable by default. And that's a beautiful thing that in my opinion needs to be preserved as we face this AI-interjection in our lives.

> 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.

I agree that leadership making irrational decisions at the expense of humans, humans that are committed to protecting our country, needs urgent attention. It's disrespectful and can lead to catastrophic loss of life for service members. It causes unneeded pain for families. I agree.

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

#88

Post by ARandomerDude »

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…

I can’t find the exact quote now but I once heard David Petraeus say something like:

“The greatest myth civilians believe about the military is that you can just bark orders and people will follow them. The greatest myth the military believes about civilians is that you can just fire anyone at any time.”

Now that I have been both a corporate software developer and a military officer, I’d say he was right.

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

#89

Post by scrum-treats »

pdonis wrote: post #73
scrum-treats wrote: post #57

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. 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…

> It's just different If you mean that civilian life is different from military life, yes, of course, that's to be expected. That doesn't mean civilian "reality" is somehow more valid or more accurate than military "reality". Indeed, since most civilians aren't expected to routinely risk their lives as part of their job, one would expect civilians' view of reality to be missing some things. (And looking at civilians…

> That doesn't mean civilian "reality" is somehow more valid or more accurate than military "reality".

It's not any more valid than living in a different culture. There's an assimilation that one undergoes. And it seems to be the case that the transition from military to civilian life is quite jarring (for lots of reasons we don't have to address here). I don't think people understand how PTSD (e.g., the constant nightmares and jerking awake to fight for your life, against your kids who stumbled in the bedroom because they are scared of the dark) impacts families. It's silent. And VA doesn't provide sufficient resources to help people cope. It's a serious situation. It's possible to make the transition better for service members and their families. It's also gravely underfunded.

> I see no point in further discussion with you.

OK. Well, if you change your mind, I'm cool with continuing the conversation.

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

#90

Post by scrum-treats »

laserdancepony wrote: post #63
scrum-treats wrote: post #57

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. 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.

> And you are the only one who can see clearly through everything. How nice.

I'm not the sole arbiter of truth. Lots of people research and write about these topics. I'm also autistic and this happens to be one of the things I research to death (being human, how humans "human", power dynamics, group dynamics). I really like this topic actually.

Apologies if I'm coming off callous. It's not my intention.

Post reply on HN