US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by austin-cheney » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 1:44 AM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #84

austin-cheney wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 he…

Completely unrelated to the subject of this thread, but I too have similar interests that I have been working on for the past 4 years. I recently wrote a paper about the concept I am exploring: https://github.com/prettydiff/share-file-systems/blob/master...

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

#92

Post by ygmelnikova » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:03 AM UTC

[dead]

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

#93

Post by this_steve_j » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:09 AM UTC

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…

Can someone please explain Article 15 in terms of an analogous civilian workplace infraction and a typical military non-judicial punishment?

For example, if Joe shows up with a hangover 2 hours late for work at as a machine operator and cops an attitude with his manager, then he might get a…

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

#94

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:15 AM UTC

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 a recently-retired Navy Reserve officer who works in tech, I think it's healthy to have both sides looking the other direction, to a point. If nothing else, it lets civilians and the military try to understand each other a bit more, and the huge cultural divide between them is a serious problem in American society.

Not enough civilians understand the military well enough to have informed opinions on what it does, and only see what Hollywood gives them. So we end up with this weird Madonna/Whore complex where vets are either shining heroes to be thanked for their service or broken, violent bums. Conversely, the military (especially the senior ranks) need to understand that they can't expect to transfer out immediately sideways into senior leadership roles in the private sector, any more than an attorney can become a software developer or a software developer can become a mechanical engineer. I mean, you CAN do these things, but only so many of your old skills and resume transfer over.

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

#95

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:21 AM UTC

lazide wrote: post #79

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…

The military gets to demand 24/7 days or article 15. That means they can order someone to do what they want, regardless. Great/important/necessary if it's life and death and everyone needs it done. But there is a reason why suicides are so high and post-discharge mental health is always a nightmare. It's a system built on consuming the people in it. That's called slavery or abuse in civilian life, and it doesn't scal…

This is not only wrong, it's offensively wrong. I get that there are poor examples of leadership to be seen in the military. But guess what? There's crap leadership in the civilian sector, too, and just because they can't NJP you does not make some workplaces any less toxic.

But to compare standard military culture to slavery or abuse is frankly appalling, especially the former.

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

#96

Post by lazide » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

psunavy03 wrote: post #95

lazide wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military gets to demand 24/7 days or article 15. That means they can order someone to do what they want, regardless. Great/important/necessary if it's life and death and everyone needs it done. But there is a reason why suicides are so high and post-discharge mental health is always a nightmare. It's a system built on consuming the people in it. That's called slavery or abuse in civilian life, and it doesn't scal…

This is not only wrong, it's offensively wrong. I get that there are poor examples of leadership to be seen in the military. But guess what? There's crap leadership in the civilian sector, too, and just because they can't NJP you does not make some workplaces any less toxic. But to compare standard military culture to slavery or abuse is frankly appalling, especially the former.

You’re welcome to be as appalled as you want. I’ve seen enough to be appalled myself.

At least it’s now a volunteer military, and we don’t send conscripts into the jungle like we used to. Still paid mostly in patriotism for broken bodies and minds though.

The smart deal is warrant officer or contractor if you can swing it. SOC if you’re one of the high speed, low drag types. At least you get more cool stories that way.

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

#97

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:31 AM UTC

morkalork wrote: post #16

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…

How would you compare the whole chain of command aspect? I worked with an ex-military guy in a small company (just under 100 headcount size) and his ideas about how a rigid hierarchy was supposed to work often clashed with the horizontal/start-up style of management everyone else had.

This is highly dependent on the person's rank and job description. "Ex-military" is like saying "ex-software guy" without specifying if you worked at a FAANG, fintech, medical, a F500's inhouse software shop, a start-up, etc. Way, way too much variation to draw any real conclusions. You have a sample size of one, and that's not enough to draw conclusions, only stereotype.

As a jet aviator, the idea of excessive hierarchy was basically anathema to my community. As a junior officer, we'd mock the surface fleet about it, talk about how they had 30-knot minds as opposed to 300-knot minds, and how they let pomp and ceremony get in the way of The Main Thing. We did have formal roles to fill as officers in our squadron on the ground. But in the air and in mission planning, one thing mattered and one thing only . . . credibility. And ultimately, while flight leads, element leads, and strike leads were a thing, the person who was expected to drive the team in the air was the person with the most awareness of what was going on. Tape debriefs would last as long as the flight did, and rank was no excuse to hide behind if you screwed up.

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

#98

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:35 AM UTC

quickthrower2 wrote: post #50

wusher wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sounds a bit like parenting!

There's the cliche about the military being a (gender-neutral) "brotherhood" as if anyone who serves automatically makes lifelong friends, forged in the fires of adversity, blah blah blah.

The military actually is like a family for one big reason: you can't pick your family or your unit. Like it or not, you're stuck with both come hell or high water. And some of both are great, while others are toxic and dysfunctional.

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

#99

Post by psunavy03 » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:37 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #52

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…

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

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

#100

Post by gxs » Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

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 have an opinion on this based just on my own experience trying to climb the ranks of the corporate world.

When someone is promoted to manager, I think it’s an important prerequisite to be competent and know the job your employees are doing. When you are new to management, it’s very rewarding to be able to teach and mentor.

In this environment it makes it easier to pick up broader management skills. It allows you to add value right away while you develop a broader set of management skills.

As you broaden that skill set you can start to broaden your scope and start learning how to manage people where you no longer can directly do what they do.

This approach isn’t always feasible for multiple reasons - sometimes the people that are highly skilled in their job don’t always make the best managers. The converse is true is well - sometimes people that aren’t highly skilled at their job end up making great managers.

Management is an interesting subject and I try really hard to learn and be a good manager. Along the way I’ve developed my own opinion of what makes a great manager, and beyond that a great leader. This doc definitely has some good tidbits.