US Army Field Manual on Leadership (1990) [pdf]

I think that's just being wise by broadening your horizons. You've already gotten the Army's take on this matter from your training.

After a decade of both civilian and Army experience, the one thing I can say the US military teaches better than any other organization is how to lead people. It has its share of leaders that fail upwards just like anywhere else, but on average the people in upper levels got there primarily on meritocracy. Your Soldiers are a big part of that, as they can actively prop you up if you do them right or bring you down should you fail them.

My napkin theory is that any profession which has a known risk of serious injury or death requires more competent leadership abilities in order to align an organization in the direction you want or need it to go (everything I've said here probably applies for first-responders as well). The fear and stress that comes with these kinds of jobs requires a certain finesse and connection from leaders with subordinates in order to convince them to put themselves in harms way for the sake of the "mission."

Military leadership has a great deal to recommend it.

For one thing, their principal mission is to deal with the unexpected, and come out on top.

That's nothing to sneeze at.

In the civilian world, first responders and mobsters are probably analogous, as most corporate leadership is about consistency and predictability.

First responders, however, only have goals to stop the unexpected, or repair damage. Mobsters figure out how to take advantage of the unexpected, and maybe make some hay from it.

I suspect you could relate.

As a recently-retired Navy Reserve officer who works in tech, I think it's healthy to have both sides looking the other direction, to a point. If nothing else, it lets civilians and the military try to understand each other a bit more, and the huge cultural divide between them is a serious problem in American society.

Not enough civilians understand the military well enough to have informed opinions on what it does, and only see what Hollywood gives them. So we end up with this weird Madonna/Whore complex where vets are either shining heroes to be thanked for their service or broken, violent bums. Conversely, the military (especially the senior ranks) need to understand that they can't expect to transfer out immediately sideways into senior leadership roles in the private sector, any more than an attorney can become a software developer or a software developer can become a mechanical engineer. I mean, you CAN do these things, but only so many of your old skills and resume transfer over.

I've heard many times from many places "the military produces so many extraordinary leaders, I wonder how they do it". I don't know what your experience has been, but my experience in the Navy was that they "create" leaders the same way a blast furnace "creates" purified iron; by taking in vast quantities of low-quality ore and burning and discarding 95% of it. All of the programs I completed had attrition rates of 70-90%. I always got the impression military training programs knew how to select people who already had the skills required, and typically had no idea how to teach someone who didn't already know everything. But that's just my experience from the programs I completed. I certainly hope other people had different experiences.

Historically, leadership has always been a military thing. This was really the time in which one had to lead many men and, furthermore, when the circumstances meant they would instinctively have pushed back on what was asked of them.

Quality leadership is very rare. I can understand looking anywhere for information / inspiration.

As someone who has nothing to do with the army/military. There's two principals that I've always liked about it, maybe more but two stand out.

1. No one gets left behind. 2. People work together for mission wins and mutual survival.

I have had a rough time in my professional career finding either of those at places of employment even in small bits. my latest job being the best at it but still struggling sometimes.

Maybe that gets romanticized a bit in books and movies, but I think companies would be way more successful with more people operating on those principals.

US industry teach us to fiercely compete, be an individual, destroy our competition. US military says almost the exact opposite barring that the competition is outside your group. Somehow these are both the best but seem to be at complete odds with one another.

I‘ve done a book summary on The Art of Action by Stephen Bungay where he applies military principles to civilian life and it‘s one of the best ones in this field I‘ve read: https://www.lostbookofsales.com/notes/book-summary-art-of-ac...

What I feel is there may be some princples of leadership which overlap, but Military and Civilian leadership is essentially different.

In the military the lower ranks are mostly trained with drills to follow orders unquestionningly. The creativity is mostly left to Specops/Intelligence.

In the civilian world, even the lower ranks get to at least debate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

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

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

Yes, I'd call that management.

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

> which actually is somewhat easier in the military because much of the career progression is study/competency based

This is an interesting point. Being an ex-submariner, I do miss the unambiguous nature of knowing precisely what I needed to do next in terms of career progression. We had manuals for everything (big thick ones on the nuclear side), and anyone that was ahead of you had already learned what you were studying, so in (most) cases, you could ask questions and get reasonable answers. Everything was laid out in qualifications and each qualification had a static set of requirements that were well documented.

"much of the career progression"

Aren't there also many dead ends in the military?

I have an opinion on this based just on my own experience trying to climb the ranks of the corporate world.

When someone is promoted to manager, I think it’s an important prerequisite to be competent and know the job your employees are doing. When you are new to management, it’s very rewarding to be able to teach and mentor.

In this environment it makes it easier to pick up broader management skills. It allows you to add value right away while you develop a broader set of management skills.

As you broaden that skill set you can start to broaden your scope and start learning how to manage people where you no longer can directly do what they do.

This approach isn’t always feasible for multiple reasons - sometimes the people that are highly skilled in their job don’t always make the best managers. The converse is true is well - sometimes people that aren’t highly skilled at their job end up making great managers.

Management is an interesting subject and I try really hard to learn and be a good manager. Along the way I’ve developed my own opinion of what makes a great manager, and beyond that a great leader. This doc definitely has some good tidbits.

I can only speak to the Army side of things, and we'd like this to be more true. The main problem is that we change jobs within the organization too often (like every year or two), and get pushed into management too early, to ever feel like an expert in something. I often feel like we're just pretending while people doing similar jobs in the civilian world (whether it's IT, aviation, medical, etc.) are doing them for real.

However, we also have a breadth of knowledge and longevity with the organization at-large (often starting at 17-18 years old, working our way up the ranks from there) that you probably don't find much in civilian organizations.