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.
I think that's just being wise by broadening your horizons. You've already gotten the Army's take on this matter from your training.
After a decade of both civilian and Army experience, the one thing I can say the US military teaches better than any other organization is how to lead people. It has its share of leaders that fail upwards just like anywhere else, but on average the people in upper levels got there primarily on meritocracy. Your Soldiers are a big part of that, as they can actively prop you up if you do them right or bring you down should you fail them.
My napkin theory is that any profession which has a known risk of serious injury or death requires more competent leadership abilities in order to align an organization in the direction you want or need it to go (everything I've said here probably applies for first-responders as well). The fear and stress that comes with these kinds of jobs requires a certain finesse and connection from leaders with subordinates in order to convince them to put themselves in harms way for the sake of the "mission."
Yes, I think you're right. By the time I was a senior lieutenant, junior captain, in my mid-twenties I had probably internalized a lot of what the Army teaches. At that point I was looking to fill in what I felt were specific gaps; detailed things about managing time and information in a knowledge / office work environment (whereas most Army training focuses on the tactical, combat environment), effectively delegating and coaching and giving feedback to subordinates, running a staff meeting, etc. I found specific and helpful tips for that stuff in the business management / consulting literature.
That army metaphor is used by the late PATRICK WINSTON -0:19: The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifies court martial for any officer who sends a soldier into battle without a weapon. There ought to be a similar protection for students because students shouldn't go out into life without the ability to communicate, .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Unzc731iCUY&t=520s
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 figure out how to take advantage of the unexpected, and maybe make some hay from it.
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 assumptions. We assume things like the power grid is reliable, that we will have internet, and the only malicious people are common thieves attempting to rob unwitting grandmothers of their personal piggy banks. We then expect certain conventions to be automatically in place when writing software for our employers, things like: CI/CD, frameworks, code editors, and so forth. When an employer fails to meet these assumed expectations, typically limited to tools and infrastructure, we as developers consider the employer a failure. Strangely, things like policies and the human element rarely (close to never) enter these preliminary expectations for most developers which frequently results in dire second and third order consequences.
On the military side we do not have the luxury of these expectations either because we may enter an austere environment lacking the conveniences of modern life or because the military culture is socially backwards with regards to modern software.
Seeing these differences in expectations and appropriately self-reflecting becomes a necessary factor in durability. In my 15 years of writing software as a corporate developer this, more than all other factors combined, accounts for why some organizations can build durable software products and others cannot. It always boils down to two things: 1) setting appropriate expectations for people (soft-skills and inclusion) and 2) setting appropriate expectations for building quality products. Rarely, as in almost never, have I seen an organization really master both of those but I have seen organizations try at one and fail at both. In order to achieve success on one or both items there must be something to measure against and a willingness to impose hard limits.
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.
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...
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.
I've heard many times from many places "the military produces so many extraordinary leaders, I wonder how they do it". I don't know what your experience has been, but my experience in the Navy was that they "create" leaders the same way a blast furnace "creates" purified iron; by taking in vast quantities of low-quality ore and burning and discarding 95% of it. All of the programs I completed had attrition rates of 70-90%. I always got the impression military training programs knew how to select people who already had the skills required, and typically had no idea how to teach someone who didn't already know everything. But that's just my experience from the programs I completed. I certainly hope other people had different experiences.
You're not wrong. On the officer side, service academy seats and ROTC scholarships are competitive to get (like getting into any top-tier college), and then there's a decent amount of attrition along the path to commissioning, followed by more rounds of competitive selection and attrition for certain military communities (aviation, special operations, etc.), followed by the brutal up-or-out promotion and assignment system. So the people who are left standing after a while are usually fairly impressive.
Historically, leadership has always been a military thing. This was really the time in which one had to lead many men and, furthermore, when the circumstances meant they would instinctively have pushed back on what was asked of them.
since the dawn of the information age, men would not only instinctively push back, but also because they were better informed and could see throu the lies of their generals.
hence leadership increasinly became a civillian/political function.
As someone who has nothing to do with the army/military. There's two principals that I've always liked about it, maybe more but two stand out.
1. No one gets left behind.
2. People work together for mission wins and mutual survival.
I have had a rough time in my professional career finding either of those at places of employment even in small bits. my latest job being the best at it but still struggling sometimes.
Maybe that gets romanticized a bit in books and movies, but I think companies would be way more successful with more people operating on those principals.
US industry teach us to fiercely compete, be an individual, destroy our competition. US military says almost the exact opposite barring that the competition is outside your group. Somehow these are both the best but seem to be at complete odds with one another.
What I feel is there may be some princples of leadership which overlap, but Military and Civilian leadership is essentially different.
In the military the lower ranks are mostly trained with drills to follow orders unquestionningly. The creativity is mostly left to Specops/Intelligence.
In the civilian world, even the lower ranks get to at least debate.
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 actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done.
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 easily as on the civilian side, maybe easier. For the most part you won't get demoted for not giving a shit. You just won't get any more promotions, and you might eventually be not given another contract if you suck enough.
There's shit leadership in every org, but I've found former military leadership to have a little bit better batting average on internal team growth than purely civilian leadership.
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 shedding dead weight like in the civilian sector.
You can though. You shuffle the complete duds/ineffective people off to S&T or an ops shop where they can't get anyone killed. You micromanage the unmotivated and threaten with article 15s. The completely unfit? They're "encouraged" to be failure to adapt or to go AWOL.
There is some degree of that, but the military is all
volunteer and retention matters. There are still consequences to being a jerk. They're just slower to appear.
It sounds like you might be familiar with how it was in the 70s-90s as the military was trying to figure out the transition between conscription and voluntarily service.
Where the brass all came up under the old style, but all the new blood was 100% voluntary. It wasn't fun growing pains. I served in the early 2000s and there was still some remnants if this, but mostly it wasn't like that.
> 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.
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…
Don't think of it as anything that guy is saying, because he's full of shit. Let's start with his example of the officers telling the non-rates (e=3 and below) what to do. That's already generally unrealistic. Officcer's tell nco's who manage the lower ranks.
Article 15's are also called NJP (non-judicial punishment). You stand before the commanding officer in lieu of going to trial (court martial in the military).
One outcome of bullshit article 15's like mentioned above is someone calling the CO's bluff and going to trial. This would make the officer look like a fool and could end his career right there.
The result of an NJP could be loss of rank, confinement to quarters or loss of half pay for up to 3 months. Probably the most common would be DUI's.
It doesn't really fit into that setup. When given an article 15, you can demand a trial by court-martial, so it doesn't really have a parallel in the civilian job market. It's usually kinda like house-arrest. So maybe think of it as some combination of a demotion, a fine, and a couple weeks in jail.
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.
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 scale. It does have it's place though.
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.
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.
> How would you compare the whole chain of command thing?
Not op, but…
It depends on how “ex” this vet was and what his MOS was. Specifically:
1. A lot of modern military leadership (esp. in the battlefield) is about giving the folks on the frontlines (figuratively and literally) the information and autonomy they need to make the best decisions for the mission. Some older vets may not have experienced this shift.
2. Some MOSes lend themselves to a strict hierarchy and SOPs, often because it’s just prudent for the job at hand. Others are not as highly structured.
I've seen that too. Especially in situations where a team has specialized skills, and are not easily replaceable. If you treat them as subordinates instead of peers who need direction on the big picture (and reminders that profit has to be balanced with cool work ideas), then you will sink the ship. But what I usually see happen is someone else in management sees what is going on and gives them a silent demotion with pay. They get sidelined before they cause too much damage amd everyone just ignores them until they mess up bad enough to let go without worrying about a lawsuit.
As a veteran in technology with 20 years active and reserve service, this is 100 percent ignorant, prejudiced, and offensive. Typical arrogant take along the lines of "those poor military people only joined because they had no other options."
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.
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 likely where this bias comes into play.
Leadership in the military works different than in other institutions. It is one of the only systems that I know of where authority is bound with responsibility. As a leader you are held to account for your actions and the actions of your subordinates because of your authority over them(IMO police should be held to at least this standard if not higher as they are granted permission to assault, detain or use lethal force against anyone as they see fit). It is common for NCOs to be reprimanded for the failings of the subordinates because it is often characterized that the leader failed them because they did not train or oversee them properly. There is some fault tolerance built in (with leaders spot checking leaders below them by checking their subordinates) but the system will break down if you have multiple levels of failed leaders within the chain of command.
The truth in the military though, is that this authority is mostly an illusion. There are many terrible leaders that do not understand this. They believe once you attain a position you are entitled to give whatever orders you like and that people cannot refuse them. This is true in civilian life as well as military. However, a good leader knows that their subordinates grant them authority over them. Understanding that, this is where much of the military leadership philosophy comes into play: lead by example, taking care of your team, morale, etc. These things are of much more critical importance in military roles because of the levels of risk, tension, and stress are often very high.
> Having bad leaders in an authoritarian system (there are many in the military) effectively amplifies the problem they create which is likely where this bias comes into play.
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.
I think you would be surprised. There are a lot of concepts that cross over—servant leadership, trusting subordinates with expertise, setting expectations of “what” or “why” and letting your subordinates figure out “how.”
Your point is valid that those in the military can’t just quit, but there is a world of difference between motivated and trusting subordinates and those just going through the motions because they have to. (Same story in software engineers!)
Now, to be clear, the military regularly and routinely fails at the leadership principles they proscribe, but the principles are still good.
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 challenging than any leadership I’ve done in the civilian world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done.
I disagree. There are plenty of workers who don't respond productively to being treated well. Many take advantage and play games to avoid work. Being nice doesn't change anything.
What gets things done is spelling everything out. All roles and responsibilities are crystal clear. Commitment to agreed upon schedules and plans is required. Only then can people be genuinely happy with their team. Leave the sentiments and emotion out of it. Fairness and transparency are the way. Anything less creates an environment of toxic positivity and stupid power struggles.
Schedules are more than deadlines. As long as progress is being made and what's being delivered stays on a similar timeline with other dependent projects, it's fine.
Plans are more than implementation details. If the solution meets requirements, it's fine.
Agree, context is key here. Leadership ain't a one-size-fits-all deal. Military and civilian jobs are like apples and oranges at times. Military leaders gotta shape up their team with what they've got. In private business, bosses can usually swap folks in and out based on their performance. So, comparing these two is a bit like comparing apples to bowling balls.
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.
Lieutenants that "lead" the way you're imagining never see the rank of Captain. They typically receive an early separation with a general discharge that stick with them for life, or get reassigned to a desk where they remain until the end of their contract.
> 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.
Seems to be working well for AWS and their notorious H1B platoons.
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, schools, churches, or Scout troops are.
> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done.
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.
Yup. You can even put lead in their family’s water on base and there isn’t shit they can do about it. Leadership is easy in a system when broadly accepted ethical and moral norms don’t factor into your decision making.
This explains a lot. You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but you're extrapolating what you saw to the entire military based on the experience of one junior enlisted member, which is . . . not going to lead to an accurate viewpoint.
The infantry is its own beast. But most of DoD is not the infantry.
An E6 I knew started making some official complaints because a colonel was sleeping with his wife (also an E6). The colonel's wife sat him down and told him, "(the colonel) is going to make general soon" so you should just put up with it and stop causing problems.
Re your battalion commander: "Mrs. Colonel" — and for that matter "Mrs. E-9" — and their husbands are a longstanding problem, but as far as I could tell* in my day, it was just a minor irritant. No organization is flawless, and you'll find d[*]ckheads, with and without spousal attachments, in mid- and senior management in most walks of life.
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 accomplish that. Much of that science is on leadership and how to organize groups into effective teams.
A brief skimming of many of these texts clearly highlight how tactics like overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term. The most effective leaders care for and inspire their subordinates, which yields more cohesive teams and higher productivity. The military teaches this constantly.
> 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 conditioning, to respond instantly and consistently to stimuli.
There are higher levels of leadership that use more sophisticated mechanisms, and there are great leaders in the military no doubt. For sure I can say this. Some of the most intelligent, mindful persons in leadership hold advanced military positions.
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. This is to say, the majority of people are located at or near the bottom. And guess what happens at or near the bottom? "Continuous exploitation of lower level persons."
And when those persons leave the military and are given leadership positions in corporate institutions, guess how they lead? You already described it: "... overworking subordinates, threatening troops, and other intimidation tactics have terrible consequences in the long term."
> 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. 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.
> You're making a correlation that the best leaders are at the top, but that's not the case.
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.
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 description of what I experienced then.
> 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 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.
> 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 work like cults do not win wars. Militaries that win wars have esprit de corps, but that is not the same as a cult. A cult has no objective purpose outside the people who run it. A military does--or at least, a military that can actually win wars does.
> > 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.
You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack. We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.
> You broke the site guidelines egregiously in this thread with flamewar, snark, and even personal attack.
Please do explain the algorithm that resolves to a True statement here. I can't find a link to the codebase for the sentiment and opinion analysis models.
> We ban accounts that post like this because it destroys what the site is for.
I don't see warnings on other interlocutor accounts. Seems very one-sided, which is of questionable moderation. Not just on this comment thread but many others. I don't see these warnings anywhere. Again, this points to subjectivity. I searched for subjectivity in moderation on the link you provided and it returned no results.
Please can you also share the algorithms used in moderation for HN?
The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.
Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). That's a universal bias, same as it always feels like the cops are singling you out for a speeding ticket when lots of other cars were going fast too.
> The "algorithm" is that I read your comment and saw that it was obviously breaking the rules. I wish I knew how to write software to do that correctly, but I don't.
Got it. Maybe I will give it a shot and share it. I'm not sure which types of bots you're already using but there's ways to orchestrate consensus networks on opinion dynamics to derive a "threat" level (or whatever metric name you want to call it). And that could be used to do things like auto-cut tickets to inspect threads for guideline violations.
IMO, there was a misunderstanding about the term "you": there is an individual "you" and a collective "you".
> Re other commenters: everyone always feels like the mods are singling them out personally and treating the other side with kid gloves
I don't feel like I'm being singled out, more like I feel like there is inconsistency in moderation. Probably because it's hard and there are limited resources and the bots that you do have have thresholds set super judiciously to avoid false-positive flagging (or not; I don't actually know).
Moderation here is always going to be inconsistent, simply because we don't see everything that gets posted, or even 10% of it - there's far too much. If you see a post that ought to have been moderated but hasn't been, the likeliest explanation is that we didn't see it. You can help by flagging it or emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com.
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.
> 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 have never had the experience, but devalue it because they don't understand it. The only way to fix that is to (a) teach civilians that people who volunteer to serve their country in the military deserve respect, not disdain, and (b) teach our political leaders that they need to not use the military unless it's really necessary, so that the public will support such usage instead of protesting against it.
> 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 very much the same as women arguing that men should not have a say over their bodies; bodily autonomy is a human right, not a right reserved for only white men.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
>> 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 are not in control of your own mind. Which gets into the illusion of free will and if that's real, but there's a boundedness that is tight or loose depending on the individual/group. And yours seems quite tight. As in, constricted from any thoughts outside your military programming. Scary stuff.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. No more of this please. Also, please avoid perpetuating flamewars - we don't want those here, and you did it quite badly, and a lot, in this thread. See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36935261.
This is how cults work. Another example is Republicans who believe in Trumpism and QAnon. It is quite reasonable that those persons can use a defense of insanity, because they are brainwashed (i.e., not in control of their minds). It's how cults work.
I didn't make cults. And I didn't make people join them.
You made the statement in a personal way. Responding with a generic argument doesn't address that.
Telling someone "you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind" is super obviously a personal attack, or at least guaranteed to read as one. Please stop doing that so we don't have to ban you—and please stop posting flamewar comments as well. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for:
It's not a personal attack. It's a statement of cause and effect. When a person is programmed to think and believe a certain way, to the point of operant conditioning, that pattern in the brain fires first. By design. That's the purpose.
In terms of the "flamewar" claim, (1) did you also warn the other person? (2) Just because the truth doesn't make people feel good doesn't make it less true. Stoking a flame can be a subjective experience depending on one's personal position about a topic.
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 whose jobs do routinely involve risking one's life, such as police or firefighting, might give quite a different take on even civilian "reality".)
> Are you still in the military
No. I already said elsewhere in this discussion that my military experience is several decades old.
> you are sending clear signals that you are not in control of your own mind
Spare me your patronizing. You are welcome to your uninformed opinions, but don't expect me to respect them. I see no point in further discussion with you.
> 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.
> 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.
Which is written by a navy submarine captain, about how he turned one of the lowest performing crews into a high performing crews that went on to become leaders elsewhere.
It really spoke to helping align motivation, and making a path forward for success, which actually is somewhat easier in the military because much of the career progression is study/competency based (at least around submarine tasks). This well defined progression is less so outside the military, which I think is why we see so much job hopping.
> which actually is somewhat easier in the military because much of the career progression is study/competency based
This is an interesting point. Being an ex-submariner, I do miss the unambiguous nature of knowing precisely what I needed to do next in terms of career progression. We had manuals for everything (big thick ones on the nuclear side), and anyone that was ahead of you had already learned what you were studying, so in (most) cases, you could ask questions and get reasonable answers. Everything was laid out in qualifications and each qualification had a static set of requirements that were well documented.
The text "Mastering The Art of War" (Liu Ji & Zhuge Liang, Thomas Cleary translation) has some interesting advice for determining if someone is suitable for a leadership position:
>
"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."
As someone who has led companies for several decades, the foreword bullet points aren’t half bad (in my words, the context is different and not everything translates directly, mistakes aren’t so often deadly in business) :
- know your business
- teach your team
- be a good listener
- treat your team with dignity and respect
- know the fundamentals of your business
- set a good example
- establish a positive culture
I went through a year of officers training in the Swedish army before my first job, after a year as a conscript. (Quite a different thing than other armed forces, Sweden being neutral, and no prospect of going to war on foreign soil, for example). I probably learned more things about leading people in those years, than I did in the following ten years. Not everyone was a good teacher, but there were some excellent leadership teachers there.
> 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)
If only this advice were followed in other spheres (and is it observed in the Army or is it aspirational?)
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.
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.
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
I really liked "Small Unit Leadership" as having some good lessons for business leaders as well.
One thing that stuck with me is how the military can't just fire the people that don't work out, so there's significant time spent on how to get underperforming people / units back into shape.
the conventional wisdom was always that the cold war era land battle calculus went to NATO/US because of it's well developed NCO corps. the adversary was thought to be a 'hollow' force of conscripts who lacked professionalism and had few career soldiers who were capable of leading new recruits and effectively implementing the will of higher command.
This way of thinking and this manual which enshrines the thinking of the day may seem out of date and was hotly debated at the time seems to be pretty spot on judging the performance of the adversary in Ukraine.
The primary difference between army leadership and corporate leadership is that corporate "leadership" is more about saving their own position and job.
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...