3 ms·
Military teams are built around trust in underlying training and well-defined roles with well-defined hierarchy with clear paths of ownership and succession. Ev
by kodah 5y ago
Military teams are built around trust in underlying training and well-defined roles with well-defined hierarchy with clear paths of ownership and succession. Everybody knows who will take charge of the fire team if the fire team leader is dead, everyone knows who will take the squad if the squad leader is dead. The succession path is tested every time one of those leaders is away. The working leaders in fire teams and squads are the only word or authority that matters, most of the time.
This is the biggest thing I had to get used to in corporate environments. Software teams, even when you're a lead, really only have hierarchy starting with a manager. Managers, on the other hand, are rarely technical (or technical enough) and are oddballs in the example of a fire team. It'd be like throwing someone from admin into an engineering battalion and being like, "hey, here's a metal detector, you're in charge now."
- darkerside 5y agoAnd yet, for most of history, people didn't want to fight the enemy at all. Their biggest motivation was protecting each other.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kodah 5y agoI think that's likely a very rosey interpretation of history. In times of strife, and war, "protecting each other" and "fighting the enemy" are synonymous. Warrior cultures, past and present, generally have a fairly well defined escalation of force, which includes the time to fight and de-escalation.
- darkerside 5y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/b6k528/percentage_of_soldier_who_purposely_missed_or/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/b6k528/percentage_... Most people don't want to fight. It's only recently we've gotten much better at indoctrinating soldiers into killing machines.