[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.