4 ms·

If you're looking for logic then you don't understand how these organizations work The logic is that everyone must be replaceable on a moments notice because t

If you're looking for logic then you don't understand how these organizations work The logic is that everyone must be replaceable on a moments notice because they might be shot and someone else will need to pick up that job. Having roles that you need to be intimately familiar with in order to be effective is the exact opposite of what the military needs. If a job can be done by someone with minimal training while desperately sleep-deprived then that is perfect for their needs.

solatic 6y ago
That's an ideal, not the reality. The reality is actually pretty frequently similar to the private sector - someone is the only person who knows how to do something, they leave, and they're replaced by someone who doesn't know how to do it and picks things up as they go along. It's one of the reasons why militaries can feel pretty dysfunctional. The only way of ensuring that people are adequately replaceable is to have formal training programs, and the only way of ensuring that those training programs improve over time is to have a feedback loop to take in lessons from the field and to keep abreast of updates to the state-of-the-art. Ultimately this is too costly, even for militaries, with possible rare exceptions in small special-ops type units where people do rotate between operations and training and rarely de-facto leave the unit and as such, do not suffer from the same manpower pressures of most military units while enjoying attention of upper management when desired.
etripe 6y ago
Even in offices, the myth is that everyone is replaceable at a moment's notice, because that is a comfortable thought for those in charge that makes it easier to play "4D chess" with the corporate pawns and integrate seamlessly with quarterly and yearly budgets. It's based on the law of averages and cements ending up with mediocre workers and products at best. Exceptional workers in key (non-management) positions will take whatever they've learned with them, never to return. That leads to failed excavation projects looking for the original reasoning and business logic. Then, things need to be recreated from scratch because there is no alternative besides hiring the former worker as an expensive consultant. All because people failed to plan ahead and guarantee actual continuity, focusing exclusively on the small subset of elementary tasks. In the end, the work becomes more disorganised and product/service quality suffers because of gaps in domain knowledge, context and competence. That myth might be relatively harmless in the primary and secondary sectors to a large degree, but is actively harmful in the tertiary, quaternary and quinary sectors. If you factor in that most of the work - both in terms of quality and volume - is done by a small minority of employees, the prevailing management dogma is costing companies lots of money to entertain the notion that worker retention is a secondary consideration. It's especially myopic because it usually doesn't take a whole lot to keep people happy in their jobs, leveraged as they are by their own obligations.
- steveBK123 6y ago
  Yes, a lot of this kind of "everyone is replaceable" 4D chess mentality of management leads to a fat middle. I've seen this both at large, stodgy organizations that have frequent layoffs and at smaller organizations with Frank Underwood CTOs. Bottom performers get managed out on the firms schedule, but top performers find their way out on their own schedule. This can lead to great chaos.. people getting un-fired, throwing money at the key man risks you accidentally created, and over-correcting with too-fast over-hiring which then leads to inevitable future firings.
- mbrodersen 6y ago
  You are 100% correct. It costs a lot of $ and time (6 months or longer) to replace a good software developer. So if you do it all the time, your company will be operating way below what it needs to be competitive. The moment your company management starts saying “everybody is replaceable” you know the company is going downhill and it is time for you to find a better job.

solatic 6y ago

That's an ideal, not the reality. The reality is actually pretty frequently similar to the private sector - someone is the only person who knows how to do something, they leave, and they're replaced by someone who doesn't know how to do it and picks things up as they go along. It's one of the reasons why militaries can feel pretty dysfunctional. The only way of ensuring that people are adequately replaceable is to have formal training programs, and the only way of ensuring that those training programs improve over time is to have a feedback loop to take in lessons from the field and to keep abreast of updates to the state-of-the-art. Ultimately this is too costly, even for militaries, with possible rare exceptions in small special-ops type units where people do rotate between operations and training and rarely de-facto leave the unit and as such, do not suffer from the same manpower pressures of most military units while enjoying attention of upper management when desired.

etripe 6y ago

Even in offices, the myth is that everyone is replaceable at a moment's notice, because that is a comfortable thought for those in charge that makes it easier to play "4D chess" with the corporate pawns and integrate seamlessly with quarterly and yearly budgets. It's based on the law of averages and cements ending up with mediocre workers and products at best. Exceptional workers in key (non-management) positions will take whatever they've learned with them, never to return. That leads to failed excavation projects looking for the original reasoning and business logic. Then, things need to be recreated from scratch because there is no alternative besides hiring the former worker as an expensive consultant. All because people failed to plan ahead and guarantee actual continuity, focusing exclusively on the small subset of elementary tasks. In the end, the work becomes more disorganised and product/service quality suffers because of gaps in domain knowledge, context and competence. That myth might be relatively harmless in the primary and secondary sectors to a large degree, but is actively harmful in the tertiary, quaternary and quinary sectors. If you factor in that most of the work - both in terms of quality and volume - is done by a small minority of employees, the prevailing management dogma is costing companies lots of money to entertain the notion that worker retention is a secondary consideration. It's especially myopic because it usually doesn't take a whole lot to keep people happy in their jobs, leveraged as they are by their own obligations.

steveBK123 6y ago
Yes, a lot of this kind of "everyone is replaceable" 4D chess mentality of management leads to a fat middle. I've seen this both at large, stodgy organizations that have frequent layoffs and at smaller organizations with Frank Underwood CTOs. Bottom performers get managed out on the firms schedule, but top performers find their way out on their own schedule. This can lead to great chaos.. people getting un-fired, throwing money at the key man risks you accidentally created, and over-correcting with too-fast over-hiring which then leads to inevitable future firings.
mbrodersen 6y ago
You are 100% correct. It costs a lot of $ and time (6 months or longer) to replace a good software developer. So if you do it all the time, your company will be operating way below what it needs to be competitive. The moment your company management starts saying “everybody is replaceable” you know the company is going downhill and it is time for you to find a better job.