Co Founders are already quite often reasonably gung-ho risk takers.
I think what's often lacking are attributes like empathy - I'm not sure trying to further militarise startups helps that.
I think what's often lacking are attributes like empathy - I'm not sure trying to further militarise startups helps that.
What I actually learned is that if something is right, it’s right. Context makes a slight difference but fundamental principles hold true. There are laws of nature.
The article isn't suggesting militarizing start ups - it's providing some context on which elements of the military officer selection process are transferable to the start up co-founder selection process.
edit: clarity
Before, the commander was the first in and last man out of battle (the article's "lead by example") now we have smooth talking presidents sending young men to die in a suit and tie. Napoleon would have none of that.
Likewise, whereas before startups genuinely tried to do good (google "dont be evil", staying out of China, game devs creating worlds like 2nd life etc); nowadays startups actively find ways to treat you as the product, to be sold to the highest bidder and you are just a number on some dashboard, that must be enticed to engage. See Google, Zynga, FB, etc .
Empathy has gone missing and this is not a particular problem for startups or military.
There are too many degrees of separation between the ruler and the ruled. Between the doer and the consumer. As that distance increases, we also lose connection to what matters.
The incompetent are shmoozing themselves into power, and this phenomena is not specific to 1 part of society
> ...the overfamiliarity problem. That one founder will become too comfortable, start taking liberties with the others that they would never dare to do in any other context, by virtue of the fact that ‘they’re all friends’.
Dealing with our own and others immaturity, or lack of professionalism, in a caring and sympathetic way seems like a fundamental difference between the military and private life. The military kicks you out or keeps you down, and non-military groups try to help everyone grow while tolerating problems. I wonder what the military attitude would be to the common business idea of growing into the job, or learning on the job? (Or the Dilbert principle.)
To me, how I want to see empathy applied in a military context, is nothing to do with familiarity or chumminess, and everything to do with the idea that, if you are my commander and you order me to battle, to fight and to die, that you do so carrying the full weight of that responsibility, that you understand my life and my worth as a human being, and that you empathize with the gravity and danger of what you are asking me to undertake, and that you won't spend my life in vain.
That is the real root of empathy, in the military, for leaders to really truly understand the both mundane and yet impossible weight of what they are asking their soliders to do. If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know).
> If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know).
And you are absolutely right. I knew officers who didn't care about their soldiers and saw them solely as underlings. If I had my way, they would have never seen the privilege of command.
> "professionalism means being able to knuckle down and shift your mindset into one focused on working, one aimed at achieving an objective or mission success"
Which explicitly removes dealing with "the whole person" from the definition of professionalism. If a co-worker's spouse died last night, the professional thing to do is compartmentalize. This is the opposite of empathy
Sure, in tough (particularly time sensitive) situations you’re taught to compartmentalize to get the job done. You don’t want someone lost in thought about a cheating spouse when bullets are flying. But in general, people were treated as complex individuals.
From the OP: >The military kicks you out or keeps you down, and non-military groups try to help everyone grow while tolerating problems.
The military puts a premium on training and accountability. Are you physically unfit? Your fire team or squad leader will take time away from their own family to train you. Have a substance abuse problem? The military will often try multiple times to help you overcome it. If your spouse dies, I can all but guarantee you your military unit will be checking on you regularly and helping to make sure you have the resources to deal with it. I’ve never seen that type of effort in the private sector from the organization level. I wonder if people are confusing a “tough” or “accountable” culture with an uncaring one.
I wasn't in a military, but just a "basic training" is far more than I ever got at work, so I've always assumed cultural emphasis on training was much higher in military orgs
If anything, empathy is a key trait for effective leadership because it engenders trust between leaders and subordinates. Soldiers are neither robots nor imperial stormtroopers. We don't shun basic expressions of humanity for the sake of it, and certainly not as a general rule.
> I wonder if people are confusing a “tough” or “accountable” culture with an uncaring one.
And this is EXACTLY what I meant in my article when I said people frequently misunderstand the concept of professionalism.