[mter]

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.

[monocasa]

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.

[mter]

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.

[Spooky23]

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

[lazide]

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.

[morkalork]

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.

[psunavy03]

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.

[HybridCurve]

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.

[gcoakes]

> 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.

[jelkand]

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.

[wusher]

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.

[quickthrower2]

Sounds a bit like parenting!

[toss1]

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.

[ARandomerDude]

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.

[AndrewKemendo]

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.

[psunavy03]

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

[sublinear]

> 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.

[watwut]

Schedules and plans in software engineering bring neither clearness nor happiness.

[fsckboy]

> Nothing the military puts out on leadership should be taken very seriously...

...unless you read it and think about it first.

nor should blanket criticisms be leveled in the same circumstance.

[aic5]

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.

[infamouscow]

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.

[batch12]

If you can't lead effectively, you can't complete the mission. Fear only gets you so far.

[intelVISA]

> 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.

[CamperBob2]

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.

[LanceH]

You clearly don't know anything about the military. If you treat your subordinates like that, you can kiss your career good-bye.

>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

It doesn't work like that.

[pyrale]

> 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.

[abwizz]

> no one can quit to get away from you

can't help but think this is an essential part; if everybody is kindof stuck with each other, there is an incentive to make it work, somehow.

if leaders can make a whishlist and then pick and choose, why would anyone invest more than to keep the apperance.

[sockaddr]

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.

[dctoedt]

Just curious: Have you served (in the military)?

[mter]

Yes, 02-05, OEF/OIF 11b got out as an E4.

I was incredibly unimpressed with military leadership. You can read about my old BC if you're interested: https://journalnow.com/colonels-wife-in-middle-of-military-w...

[beardyw]

> Civilian leaders have to actually balance keeping people happy and getting things done.

Yes, I'd call that management.

[raptorraver]

Friend of mine said he has learned way more about leadership from boy scouts than from army.

[brightlancer]

"What is the difference between the Cub Scouts and the military? Bzzzzzt! Cub Scouts don't have heavy artillery!" - _Good Morning Vietnam_

[aethros]

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.