Clarify.
I will:
You're making an assumption based on your own opinion, and calling it fact.
As you once said, you should join the military and get a hand on military psychology before you assume that something is what is because you think it is when you're uninformed about it.
You're making an assumption based on your own opinion, and calling it fact.
I never said it was a fact, I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my statement, I was just merely pointing out that by my philosophy it would be not necessary for an officer to persuade his men in following their orders.
You're awfull quick to make such an statement, I for one, see no evidence that supports this assertion.
.
Very well. Will Sun Tzu do?
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look upon them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death. If, however, you are indulgent, but unable to make your authority felt; kind-hearted, but unable to enforce your commands; and incapable, moreover, of quelling disorder: then your soldiers must be likened to spoilt children; they are useless for any practical purpose.”
2,500 years ago and he was advocating a similar systle of leadership, and a balance between the authoritarian and persuasive styles of leadership. Its a universal truth, not something unique to the United States Marine Corps or the United States military in general. In fact the United States military's approach to leadership wasn't even birthed in the United States. It was inherited from Britain, which was in turn inherited from the Romans & the Greeks. It's been part of the Western way of war for millenia.
In fact the United States military's approach to leadership wasn't even birthed in the United States. It was inherited from Britain, which was in turn inherited from the Romans & the Greeks. It's been part of the Western way of war for millenia.
Sing! Come on, Sing!
Love this film.
2,500 years ago and he was advocating a similar systle of leadership, and a balance between the authoritarian and persuasive styles of leadership. Its a universal truth, not something unique to the United States Marine Corps or the United States military in general. In fact the United States military's approach to leadership wasn't even birthed in the United States. It was inherited from Britain, which was in turn inherited from the Romans & the Greeks. It's been part of the Western way of war for millenia.
That's not exactly truth, that's (partial) historical constistency, your asserting that persuasion is required for combat leadership, something to which I object because in my philisophy the soldier should obey his superiors without question.
That's not exactly truth, that's (partial) historical constistency, your asserting that persuasion is required for combat leadership, something to which I object because in my philisophy the soldier should obey his superiors without question.
Honestly, I think you're just arguing to argue at this point.
I'd like to second DG's question, are you in the military? Because it seems foolish to discuss military philosophy and leadership approaches with no actual personal experience to back it up.That's not exactly truth, that's (partial) historical constistency, your asserting that persuasion is required for combat leadership, something to which I object because in my philisophy the soldier should obey his superiors without question.
Because it seems foolish to discuss military philosophy and leadership approaches with no actual personal experience to back it up.
But how relevant is personal experiance in this dicussion? Philosophies can be based on a broad number of factors, experiance being one of them. Yet many philosophies aren't based on personal experiance though they are still regared with value. Wouldn't it actually be more foolish to demand that every single philosophy in existance should be based on one's personal experiance, completely neglecting all the other factors that could give it merit?
That's not exactly truth, that's (partial) historical constistency, your asserting that persuasion is required for combat leadership, something to which I object because in my philisophy the soldier should obey his superiors without question.
Soldiers are men, not automatons.
A leader who does nothing but bark and crack the whip will get his men do what is required of them but nothing more. A little persuasion is required if you want those men to perform above & beyond the call of duty.
A leader who does nothing but bark and crack the whip will get his men do what is required of them but nothing more. A little persuasion is required if you want those men to perform above & beyond the call of duty.
Ah, see, we can actually agree here. However we don't even need to "bark and crack the whip" In order to get soldiers to obey their orders. When taught correctly just giving the order with the authority of an officer to soldier will be enough to make the soldier fullfill it.
The question becomes now whether we want the men to perform "above & beyond the call of duty", I find this to be debatable, namely because It's a soldier's duty to do what he's ordered, nothing more and nothing less.
Um... what? Is there a reason not to seek to exceed expectations?Ah, see, we can actually agree here. However we don't even need to "bark and crack the whip" In order to get soldiers to obey their orders. When taught correctly just giving the order with the authority of an officer to soldier will be enough to make the soldier fullfill it.
The question becomes now whether we want the men to perform "above & beyond the call of duty", I find this to be debatable, namely because It's a soldier's duty to do what he's ordered, nothing more and nothing less.
That's not a Soldiers duty. And that is how your country defines a Soldier's duties, your military sucks.
Ah, see, we can actually agree here. However we don't even need to "bark and crack the whip" In order to get soldiers to obey their orders. When taught correctly just giving the order with the authority of an officer to soldier will be enough to make the soldier fullfill it.
The question becomes now whether we want the men to perform "above & beyond the call of duty", I find this to be debatable, namely because It's a soldier's duty to do what he's ordered, nothing more and nothing less.
What's your definition of "above & beyond the call of duty"?
Is it a soldier who dies in combat to save his platoon/squad? Is it someone in the military that not only does his job, but goes out of his way to help his fellow soldier?
Um... what? Is there a reason not to seek to exceed expectations?
On many occasions it's commendable, but not required. However in certain operations it can very important that soldiers does exactly and only wat is expected of him/her.
What's your definition of "above & beyond the call of duty"?
Is it a soldier who dies in combat to save his platoon/squad? Is it someone in the military that not only does his job, but goes out of his way to help his fellow soldier?
Th
Actually, I was quoting Han Shot first.
Ah, see, we can actually agree here. However we don't even need to "bark and crack the whip" In order to get soldiers to obey their orders. When taught correctly just giving the order with the authority of an officer to soldier will be enough to make the soldier fullfill it.
The question becomes now whether we want the men to perform "above & beyond the call of duty", I find this to be debatable, namely because It's a soldier's duty to do what he's ordered, nothing more and nothing less.
The ability to consistently exceed expectations is what separates a great unit from a merely competent one.
The ability to consistently exceed expectations is what separates a great unit from a merely competent one.
I don't necessarily disagree, But I mentioned before, that while exceeding expectations is often appreciated there are a lot of delicate situations in which units are required to peform precicesly as they are expected
"So, Shepard, are you seeing anyone?"
"I am."
"Who is it? Dish."
"THE MILITARY."
But how relevant is personal experiance in this dicussion? Philosophies can be based on a broad number of factors, experiance being one of them. Yet many philosophies aren't based on personal experiance though they are still regared with value. Wouldn't it actually be more foolish to demand that every single philosophy in existance should be based on one's personal experiance, completely neglecting all the other factors that could give it merit?
When taught correctly just giving the order with the authority of an officer to soldier will be enough to make the soldier fullfill it.
namely because It's a soldier's duty to do what he's ordered, nothing more and nothing less.
"So, Shepard, are you seeing anyone?"
"I am."
"Who is it? Dish."
"THE MILITARY."
"In a row?"
That's situational, but like I said, your opinion is extreme and I don't think you'd hold it if you were in the military. No good officer would agree to your "philosophy".
Well I'm sure glad you're in a such a privileged position to decide whether something is extreme or not. And no good officer would agree with me, how exactly would you know that? And what makes a good officer in your eyes and why would they disagree with me?
We both have our views and we obviously disagree, let's not attempt to convice the other that ours is superior.
Blindly following all orders is not always desirable. Officers make mistakes too, do you want soldiers to ignore them and potentially get themselves killed?
If an officer make a mistake it goes without saying that he will be held responsible for the consquences.
We both have our views and we obviously disagree, let's not attempt to convice the other that ours is superior.
If an officer make a mistake it goes without saying that he will be held responsible for the consquences.
Ah, the good ol' USSR. "Let's throw people at them until they run out of bullets!"Fine, let's agree to disagree.
No, his subordinates(NCOs) should point out the mistake and not blindly follow a bad order. Officers and soldiers alike make mistakes, like everyone else.
We're not talking about the Red Army here(presumably). But at their example you can see why it's important not to follow orders blindly. The Soviet Union lost ~14 million servicemen in the war thanks to its ruthless tactics.
Ah, the good ol' USSR. "Let's throw people at them until they run out of bullets!"
No, his subordinates(NCOs) should point out the mistake and not blindly follow a bad order. Officers and soldiers alike make mistakes, like everyone else.
By disobeying an order you are directly challenging the authority and competance of a superior officer, a soldier lesser rank is in no position to make such a call, unless of course the superior officer´s action are in conflict with orders of higher authority or standard procedures.
Besides, Mistakes are generally only discovered after they´re made.
We're not talking about the Red Army here(presumably). But at their example you can see why it's important not to follow orders blindly. The Soviet Union lost ~14 million servicemen in the war thanks to its ruthless tactics.
Conventionally, the Soviet war machine in WWII was more powerfull than that of Allied forces, and it did pay off.
Ah, the good ol' USSR. "Let's throw people at them until they run out of bullets!"
Orders, man.
Retour en haut