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
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."