[smcin]

> how the US Marine Corps thinks about leadership.

Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.

> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.

Specifics please?

> Do You Talk Funny?, by Nihill. The thesis is that good standup comedians are the best public speakers, and that we can learn their techniques.

Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative. (I almost dragged my friends to one of his gigs once until I checked out his videos.) And it depends on what type of "public speaker" he means; John F Kennedy would probably have been terrible at corporate comedy gigs.

[mrj]

> Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.

The Marines think about leadership very differently than that. Sure, parts are authoritarian, but most people are surprised to learn that training to be an independent thinker starts in boot camp. They don't even tell you how to "swab the deck," you are provided the tools and given the direction that the floor has to be spotless. Regular inspections provide continual feedback, and out of that recruits routinely develop their own procedures and novel techniques for mission success. (Did you know newspaper is extremely effective at finish polishing windows?)

Leadership is pushed hard at every level. If two Marines are on a job/mission/taking out the trash, even if they are the same rank, the one with more time is expected to take responsibility for the other. It's not bossing around authoritarian style, it's as real as that other Marine's life is your number one priority. Leaders are expected to support mission success, not drive it. You lay out the parameters of what success means, and the Marines your charge should have the tools and support necessary to accomplish that task.

In the programming world, it means that I set out a goal post, where I want the team to get to. But then I make sure they have the time to do it (I often take distracting support issues or annoying bugs so the team is not hampered), and the tools needed to get there. If the team does not, I have failed.

Marine leadership doesn't do IC work, which is the major thing I could improve. But then, Marines have a whole lot more people than I do. :)

[__turbobrew__]

Management by objective

[mrj]

Interesting, but I don't think it's really a fit:

> Management by objectives (MBO) is a process in which a manager and an employee agree on specific performance goals and then develop a plan to reach them.

I can say that never happened in my time, but I'm sure it does at the uppermost layers.

> Critics of MBO argue that it leads to employees trying to achieve the set goals by any means necessary, often at the cost of the company.

The Marines love creative thinking, but not if it violates mission objectives (the company being one). I don't think this fits, either.

> As MBO is entirely focused on goals and targets, it often ignores other parts of a company, such as the corporate culture, worker conduct, a healthy work ethos, environmental issues, and areas for involvement and contribution to the community and social good.

Oh okay, that can happen for sure. Besides the occasional "mandatory fun day," morale isn't often considered, and morale is often not great. Good leaders recognize it will impact their objectives but those can be greatly outnumbered by the careerists that want to score a win and move on.

I've always thought it had more overlap with "servant leadership," though I really dislike the term.

[aag]

> Can you give specifics? Does it primarily apply to people in heavily authoritarian-type management cultures? I don't expect that persuasion and gradually building consensus are big themes.

I can't remember the specifics any more, but I do remember being impressed. No, the ideas were much broader than "authoritarian-type management cultures." That's certainly not what I wanted to create as a manager.

I read it almost twenty-five years ago while trying to expose myself to opinions of people with a completely different perspective. I was just about to become a manager for the first time, and I wanted to be prepared. In particular, I wanted to make sure that I was serving the people I worked for well. I had had good managers and bad above me, and I had ideas about what had made the difference for me as a subordinate, but it didn't seem like just winging it would produce a good outcome. I had read some books on management in office jobs, but they weren't particularly helpful. I do remember being impressed by how much careful thought went into how the Marines taught people not only to follow, but also to lead, starting from their first day.

>> how they help people from wildly different backgrounds work together.

Specifics please?

Read the book.

> Nihill is a bad standup comedian who sort-of pivoted/reinvented himself as some corporate speaker. So, he would say something like that; doesn't make it authoritative.

I urge you to read the book rather than just speculate. I found it full of excellent ideas for structuring talks, connecting with the audience, adapting to circumstances, etc., which is why I recommended it. It wasn't about humor at all. Your ad hominem comment about him isn't relevant to whether the material in the book is good.

[jyunwai]

I can't speak to how the ideas are implemented in practice within the US Marine Corps, but a few specifics are given in "Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications 1—Warfighting," which is likely a similar document that I've found to be helpful [1].

The following excerpt encourages respectful debate, instead of blindly going along with a leader's plans:

"Relations among all leaders—from corporal to general— should be based on honesty and frankness regardless of disparity between grades. Until a commander has reached and stated a decision, subordinates should consider it their duty to provide honest, professional opinions even though these may be in disagreement with the senior’s opinions.

"However, once the decision has been reached, juniors then must support it as if it were their own. Seniors must encourage candor among subordinates and must not hide behind their grade insignia. Ready compliance for the purpose of personal advancement—the behavior of “yes-men”—will not be tolerated.""

---

The idea of erring toward respectful disagreement when warranted with leaders, instead of being a yes-man, has helped me greatly with building trust in teams I've worked with in the past.

However, I don't believe that it's always the best approach that "juniors then must support [decisions they disagree with] as if it were their own." I get that you can seem less confident by saying "{My manager} wants us to take this approach," instead of saying "We're taking this approach."

But for decisions that you personally disagree with, the best approach would include an acknowledgement of the downsides. Phrasing might be: "We're doing this because of XYZ reasons from the leadership, while acknowledging the downsides ABC."

I believe that this phrase is balanced: it avoids directly saying that you disagree with the decision (which can lead to people implementing the decision poorly, possibly making it doomed even if it turns out to be the correct one), while also acknowledging potential downsides (because the juniors are likely to see them too). An expression as if the decision were truly your own might mean an enthusiastic delivery without acknowledging the downsides, which reduces your own credibility with your direct team.

---

In any case, I believe that reading about the approach—even if one doesn't agree with every idea—is a worthwhile exercise, as I've found that much of the principles remain relevant across vastly different organizational environments.

[1] (1997) https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa...

[smcin]

Sounds like good training for the average Marine, but it doesn't apply to the higher-level scandals:

* the 20 years of coverup and inaction about prosecuting 1Lt Duncan D. Hunter for 2004 Iraq friendly-fire deaths of other Marines and Iraqis? He eventually got prosecuted much faster for congressional finance abuse.

"Marine friendly-fire deaths involving Duncan Hunter were kept hidden. His congressman dad denies interfering." https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/202...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_D._Hunter#Military_serv...

* the pattern of fatal accidents involving the Boeing V-22 Osprey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accide...

You made interesting comments about how to frame the narrative when people disagree-and-commit.

[jyunwai]

I read—but can't personally confirm—that the 1997 document is required reading for all officer candidates, so the key people involved in these incidents were likely aware of the principles prescribed in the document at some point.

But reality is always different in important ways from prescribed ideals. Real-life behaviour by bad actors gets in the way, which is a limitation of the 1997 document: it appears that it assumes all team members are acting earnestly without personal agendas and in good faith.

In practice, I believe that the involvement of external checks and controls are key to ensure good-faith behaviour, even if people within the system prefer to deal with it in-house. Interventions by independent government investigators and press coverage are important ways to add external pressure, when there is a lack of internal accountability.