4 ms·

Co Founders are already quite often reasonably gung-ho risk takers. I think what's often lacking are attributes like empathy - I'm not sure trying to further m

by adwww 5y ago

Co Founders are already quite often reasonably gung-ho risk takers. I think what's often lacking are attributes like empathy - I'm not sure trying to further militarise startups helps that.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
I do thinl there is an element of empathy that has been stripped away from the military as it has modernized. The same is true for startups as they have modernised. Before, the commander was the first in and last man out of battle (the article's "lead by example") now we have smooth talking presidents sending young men to die in a suit and tie. Napoleon would have none of that. Likewise, whereas before startups genuinely tried to do good (google "dont be evil", staying out of China, game devs creating worlds like 2nd life etc); nowadays startups actively find ways to treat you as the product, to be sold to the highest bidder and you are just a number on some dashboard, that must be enticed to engage. See Google, Zynga, FB, etc . Empathy has gone missing and this is not a particular problem for startups or military. There are too many degrees of separation between the ruler and the ruled. Between the doer and the consumer. As that distance increases, we also lose connection to what matters. The incompetent are shmoozing themselves into power, and this phenomena is not specific to 1 part of society
altrus 5y ago
From the Article: What I actually learned is that if something is right, it’s right. Context makes a slight difference but fundamental principles hold true. There are laws of nature. The article isn't suggesting militarizing start ups - it's providing some context on which elements of the military officer selection process are transferable to the start up co-founder selection process. edit: clarity
irq-1 5y ago
Empathy is addressed as a negative: > ...the overfamiliarity problem. That one founder will become too comfortable, start taking liberties with the others that they would never dare to do in any other context, by virtue of the fact that ‘they’re all friends’. Dealing with our own and others immaturity, or lack of professionalism, in a caring and sympathetic way seems like a fundamental difference between the military and private life. The military kicks you out or keeps you down, and non-military groups try to help everyone grow while tolerating problems. I wonder what the military attitude would be to the common business idea of growing into the job, or learning on the job? (Or the Dilbert principle.)
- strgcmc 5y ago
  I feel like we should separate professionalism (i.e. the spectrum of familiarity to over-familiarity) from empathy. To me, how I want to see empathy applied in a military context, is nothing to do with familiarity or chumminess, and everything to do with the idea that, if you are my commander and you order me to battle, to fight and to die, that you do so carrying the full weight of that responsibility, that you understand my life and my worth as a human being, and that you empathize with the gravity and danger of what you are asking me to undertake, and that you won't spend my life in vain. That is the real root of empathy, in the military, for leaders to really truly understand the both mundane and yet impossible weight of what they are asking their soliders to do. If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know).
  - Chan_Yuk_Chi 5y ago
    Not naive at all. This is an accurate picture of how we were taught to approach decisions - that every soldier was someone's child, someone's sibling, someone's loved one. As leaders, our decisions didn't carry just the burden of their lives, but the lives of everyone else who would be affected. > If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know). And you are absolutely right. I knew officers who didn't care about their soldiers and saw them solely as underlings. If I had my way, they would have never seen the privilege of command.
- quirkot 5y ago
  this comment is getting down voted, but I think it's correct. The author later states: > "professionalism means being able to knuckle down and shift your mindset into one focused on working, one aimed at achieving an objective or mission success" Which explicitly removes dealing with "the whole person" from the definition of professionalism. If a co-worker's spouse died last night, the professional thing to do is compartmentalize. This is the opposite of empathy
  - bumby 5y ago

by adwww 5y ago

Co Founders are already quite often reasonably gung-ho risk takers. I think what's often lacking are attributes like empathy - I'm not sure trying to further militarise startups helps that.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago

I do thinl there is an element of empathy that has been stripped away from the military as it has modernized. The same is true for startups as they have modernised. Before, the commander was the first in and last man out of battle (the article's "lead by example") now we have smooth talking presidents sending young men to die in a suit and tie. Napoleon would have none of that. Likewise, whereas before startups genuinely tried to do good (google "dont be evil", staying out of China, game devs creating worlds like 2nd life etc); nowadays startups actively find ways to treat you as the product, to be sold to the highest bidder and you are just a number on some dashboard, that must be enticed to engage. See Google, Zynga, FB, etc . Empathy has gone missing and this is not a particular problem for startups or military. There are too many degrees of separation between the ruler and the ruled. Between the doer and the consumer. As that distance increases, we also lose connection to what matters. The incompetent are shmoozing themselves into power, and this phenomena is not specific to 1 part of society

altrus 5y ago

From the Article: What I actually learned is that if something is right, it’s right. Context makes a slight difference but fundamental principles hold true. There are laws of nature. The article isn't suggesting militarizing start ups - it's providing some context on which elements of the military officer selection process are transferable to the start up co-founder selection process. edit: clarity

irq-1 5y ago

Empathy is addressed as a negative: > ...the overfamiliarity problem. That one founder will become too comfortable, start taking liberties with the others that they would never dare to do in any other context, by virtue of the fact that ‘they’re all friends’. Dealing with our own and others immaturity, or lack of professionalism, in a caring and sympathetic way seems like a fundamental difference between the military and private life. The military kicks you out or keeps you down, and non-military groups try to help everyone grow while tolerating problems. I wonder what the military attitude would be to the common business idea of growing into the job, or learning on the job? (Or the Dilbert principle.)

strgcmc 5y ago
I feel like we should separate professionalism (i.e. the spectrum of familiarity to over-familiarity) from empathy. To me, how I want to see empathy applied in a military context, is nothing to do with familiarity or chumminess, and everything to do with the idea that, if you are my commander and you order me to battle, to fight and to die, that you do so carrying the full weight of that responsibility, that you understand my life and my worth as a human being, and that you empathize with the gravity and danger of what you are asking me to undertake, and that you won't spend my life in vain. That is the real root of empathy, in the military, for leaders to really truly understand the both mundane and yet impossible weight of what they are asking their soliders to do. If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know).
- Chan_Yuk_Chi 5y ago
  Not naive at all. This is an accurate picture of how we were taught to approach decisions - that every soldier was someone's child, someone's sibling, someone's loved one. As leaders, our decisions didn't carry just the burden of their lives, but the lives of everyone else who would be affected. > If you cannot empathize with the human condition at that level, then you should not be fit for military leadership (naive of me, I know). And you are absolutely right. I knew officers who didn't care about their soldiers and saw them solely as underlings. If I had my way, they would have never seen the privilege of command.
quirkot 5y ago
this comment is getting down voted, but I think it's correct. The author later states: > "professionalism means being able to knuckle down and shift your mindset into one focused on working, one aimed at achieving an objective or mission success" Which explicitly removes dealing with "the whole person" from the definition of professionalism. If a co-worker's spouse died last night, the professional thing to do is compartmentalize. This is the opposite of empathy
- bumby 5y ago