3 ms·

>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. I spent almost 2 decades in the Army.

by phaus 7y ago

>The assumption is that the non-officers need to know what to do, but do not need to know why they need to do something. I spent almost 2 decades in the Army. Its a terrible assumption. Except for combat situations, other emergencies, or really trivial tasks, everyone should know why they are doing something. It is physically impossible to make a non-stupid person care about a thing of which they have no knowledge. From my experience, the one thing that has the greatest impact on a person's ability to do a good job is a genuine desire to accomplish whatever their objective is. If they don't know what that objective is, they simply aren't going to give a shit. They might get it done adequately, but the military is a self-proclaimed meritocracy, so one would think that isn't enough. It has been at least 50 years if not 100 since the majority of enlisted people didn't have a decent education. Now its incredibly common for enlisted Soldiers to have an undergraduate degree. Education isn't a guarantee of competence, intelligence, or even anything remotely useful, but that goes for officers and enlisted personnel. Yet the military still insists on operating like they did in olden times when the average enlisted person was an illiterate farm hand. Their primary business is the physical enforcement of political interests (AKA combat), so in some ways it makes sense for them even though it also hurts them. However, businesses should be careful when evaluating their methodologies for civilian use, because there are certainly a ton of drawbacks. The reason the US military is one of the most capable fighting forces in the world has more to do with technological sophistication (created by civilians) and a near unlimited budget than it has to do with the leadership of the military, the horrific bureaucracy that the leadership created/maintains, or the frequently alleged magical, inherent superiority of the American soldier.

sandworm101 7y ago
You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need to include the history behind the decision. One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.
- phaus 7y ago
  I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary. > It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit. More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.

by phaus 7y ago

sandworm101 7y ago

You are overthinking the problem. It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. For the trivial stuff, stuff like my example above, they really have no immediate interest in why something has to be done. That can come later. The published SOP, the checklist in the guard shack, doesn't need to include the history behind the decision. One thing that most leaders ignore is that explaining a decision to people who have no real input into that decision can often be really bad for moral. It makes the decision maker look less than confident, like they are seeking reassurance in their decision by explaining all the background behind it.

phaus 7y ago
I agreed above that for trivial things an explanation is unnecessary. > It isn't that there is no advantage in explaining things, but often times the enlisted really don't want to listen to some officer drone on about why something is being done. From my experience this mostly happens when the explanation is either blatant lying, or if its true and reveals that incompetence at a higher level than the officer delivering the message has generated a bunch of unnecessary work for the unit. More commonly I hear Soldiers saying "This is stupid, why are we doing this?" to their comrades and NCOs. Usually followed by the Soldiers doing whatever it is to the minimal accepted standard.