subject: Does Military Leadership Translate to the Business World [print this page] Many people were standing around a table discussing the great and dangerous of young people within the workplace. When a member of the group complained that his young workers weren't as productive as he needed and simply didn't seem to be in a position to "get it," I advised a method to guide these individuals through mutual understanding of mission and goals and serving to the younger workers learn as a method of engendering loyalty.
I mentioned that, in some ways in which, older generations have abdicated a responsibility to teach, opting instead to change our behaviors to meet their desires. One among the members of the discussion immediately spoken my military expertise saying that it had been easy in the military to make individuals do what you want them to as a result of they need to obey. He professed that it wasn't as simple without military law as an overriding threat to non-compliance.
That statement was at once correct and incorrect. Correct in that military members do have a legal obligation to follow orders and superiors often have legal remedies to non-compliance. Incorrect in that the legal sledgehammer is a terribly ineffective and inefficient approach to obtain loyalty and effective behavior from subordinates.
Yes, I've known military leaders who accomplish their goals through the brute force of legal authority. Typically they are successful and a few even make it to the high ranks of the service. But, more commonly they stall out somewhere as a result of that approach alienates their subordinates and does not engender the type of loyalty that produces an organization excel. But, I've also known non-military leaders who use this approach further; typically with the same results.
In a Harvard Business Review blog post last year, Colonel Tom Kolditz, a professor at the U.S. Military Academy, wrote that sensible military leadership is based on the values of duty, service, and self-sacrifice. These are the qualities of a sensible leader, whether or not in the military or civilian sector. It is the leader who understands their duty to the organization; who knows they're serving that organization and therefore the people in it; and who is willing to sacrifice their own needs for the larger smart that will be successful.
In my military service I used to be twice in unusual situations where I didn't have the conventional legal (or monetary) sledgehammer, but still had broad responsibilities to accomplish a selected mission. In both cases I had tiny staffs (most of whom had no specific demand to follow me, at least not in the traditional military sense) however national, and even international, responsibilities for that I had no real authority. I found in each cases that one did not want brute force to accomplish goals. By treating folks with respect, learning their needs and motivations, and doing my best to satisfy them whereas guaranteeing we all accomplished the overall mission, we were able to meet our goals and move the complete organization forward.
The military services have learned that a leader who works to understand and encourage their subordinates will be a lot of successful than a frontrunner who relies solely on the brute force tools that will be available. They conjointly perceive that the troops want a pacesetter who will stay with them; who understands and shares their hardships. No not all military leaders get it. However, the nice ones do.
Does Military Leadership Translate to the Business World
