[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.

[solarmist]

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.

[le-mark]

> 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.

[this_steve_j]

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…

[LanceH]

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.

[jwhitlark]

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.

[Spooky23]

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

[thret]

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.

[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.

[psunavy03]

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.

[lazide]

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.

[psunavy03]

> Still paid mostly in patriotism for broken bodies and minds though.

I find myself repeating myself in this thread . . . I'm sorry if that's your experience. But your own experience is not universalizable across DoD.

[lazide]

Of course not. I hear the chair force and navy are pretty cush!

Better get it in writing and read the fine print though, not that anyone ever does the first time.

[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]

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.

[csa]

> 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.

[galangalalgol]

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.

[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!

[psunavy03]

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.

[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

[nunez]

This is extremely surprising and not surprising at the same time.

On one hand, you hear about how active DoD recruiting is in Middle America and economically repressed neighborhoods.

On the other hand, I've met several people from wealthy families who enlisted and enjoyed their time there.

Thanks for the link!

[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.

[sublinear]

Damn I also disagree with this.

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.

[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...

[psunavy03]

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.

[monocasa]

Oof, yeah, I don't blame you for having that opinion then. That tour/MOS is just about peak shit show from a leadership perspective.

[GartzenDeHaes]

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.

[dctoedt]

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.

* Grew up in the USAF, served in the USN

[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_