The US Army has a striking deference to rank that I have noticed is not nearly as replicated in foreign militaries (even some that we assume are top down). This deference is reflected in writing. Pieces by senior leaders, even if they are not particularly insightfully, are heavily referenced by other Army leaders.
I like the insight into the different culture in COMPO 2 and 3. At CTCs, I noted how National Guard units often displayed more mission command and low-level initiative, and I attributed it to a more flattened hierarchy. A National Guard battalion commander might military outrank a company commander, but that company commander could well have a more successful civilian career. In the German Army, Aufstragtaktik was enabled by a military culture that had a flattened hierarchy because all the Junkers that dominated the officer corps were viewed as social equals. It was unseemly to micromanage a fellow aristocrat, who you might outrank militarily, but he might outrank you socially.
There's a corollary problem -- military ghostwriting. That subordinates are often charged with drafting articles for the boss is not a bad thing since senior leaders don't always have time, but some military journals have in the past suppressed acknowledging the contributions of those juniors.
I don't have a feel for how much this problem remains -- rather the impression I have had is that this is no longer the problem it once was. But it is related to Erik's points on rank, and I greatly appreciate the discussion. As professionals we have to encourage rather than discourage ideas, and dismissing someone on the basis of rank is not conducive to encouraging ideas.
In my experience as an NCO, my ideas are not always taken seriously despite their relevance or worth. I might be an outlier due to my educational background, but the point is that there are incredibly intelligent and capable Soldiers across the formation who make up the full spectrum of the rank structure. I believe that if the Army hopes to evolve at the same pace as technology and our adversaries, leaders must engage with and give voice to the ideas that come from unexpected places across the force.
The premise of the article “we have a rank problem“ is probably not going to go away anytime soon.
However, the Harding Project and encouraging junior personnel to write is a step in the right direction. You still have to get through an editor, but maybe you can leapfrog all the roadblocks, to your idea, in your chain of command.
A lot of great ideas come from the bottom up, because they are created from a blank canvas. These new ideas do not carry the weight of doctrine, or bureaucracy, or “I had a tour an acquisition, and the FAR will not allow that”…
This post also reminded me of a couple jokes:
- A Major is just a shriveled up Second Lieutenant
- when you make Major, they take away your brain
- When you make Lieutenant Colonel, they take away your tongue
- when you make Colonel they give you your tongue back
Whatever happened to the Napoleon’s Corporal concept? Somehow we pay lip service-across the services-to NCO’s being the backbone of the branches. Yet, like our own personal health, if we don’t pay for it now in hard work and investing in its functional processes, we’ll pay for it later in our debilitating diseases. The metaphors might be overused, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Re: 'Yet, like our own personal health, if we don’t pay for it now in hard work and investing in its functional processes, we’ll pay for it later in our debilitating diseases.' Couldn't agree more. You been reading my other work? https://downrangedata.substack.com/p/g9-getting-older
I cannot even estimate how many of my ideas were crushed by seniors over 26 years of service. I will admit to being rather liberal with my observations. I knew they were most valid when stolen. Amazing what can happen when you do not care who gets the credit.
I'm 100% guilty of laughing about some of the articles that have emanated from the company grades, true.
But in my defense, the subject has almost always been "Why doesn't the Army do army things exactly how I want it to" and I don't think any of us should encourage the kids who think that a commission means their ideas automatically deserve merit.
The US Army has a striking deference to rank that I have noticed is not nearly as replicated in foreign militaries (even some that we assume are top down). This deference is reflected in writing. Pieces by senior leaders, even if they are not particularly insightfully, are heavily referenced by other Army leaders.
I like the insight into the different culture in COMPO 2 and 3. At CTCs, I noted how National Guard units often displayed more mission command and low-level initiative, and I attributed it to a more flattened hierarchy. A National Guard battalion commander might military outrank a company commander, but that company commander could well have a more successful civilian career. In the German Army, Aufstragtaktik was enabled by a military culture that had a flattened hierarchy because all the Junkers that dominated the officer corps were viewed as social equals. It was unseemly to micromanage a fellow aristocrat, who you might outrank militarily, but he might outrank you socially.
There's a corollary problem -- military ghostwriting. That subordinates are often charged with drafting articles for the boss is not a bad thing since senior leaders don't always have time, but some military journals have in the past suppressed acknowledging the contributions of those juniors.
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/practice-problems-military-ghostwriting/
I don't have a feel for how much this problem remains -- rather the impression I have had is that this is no longer the problem it once was. But it is related to Erik's points on rank, and I greatly appreciate the discussion. As professionals we have to encourage rather than discourage ideas, and dismissing someone on the basis of rank is not conducive to encouraging ideas.
In my experience as an NCO, my ideas are not always taken seriously despite their relevance or worth. I might be an outlier due to my educational background, but the point is that there are incredibly intelligent and capable Soldiers across the formation who make up the full spectrum of the rank structure. I believe that if the Army hopes to evolve at the same pace as technology and our adversaries, leaders must engage with and give voice to the ideas that come from unexpected places across the force.
Great ideas come from everywhere.
Dumb ideas come from everywhere.
The premise of the article “we have a rank problem“ is probably not going to go away anytime soon.
However, the Harding Project and encouraging junior personnel to write is a step in the right direction. You still have to get through an editor, but maybe you can leapfrog all the roadblocks, to your idea, in your chain of command.
A lot of great ideas come from the bottom up, because they are created from a blank canvas. These new ideas do not carry the weight of doctrine, or bureaucracy, or “I had a tour an acquisition, and the FAR will not allow that”…
This post also reminded me of a couple jokes:
- A Major is just a shriveled up Second Lieutenant
- when you make Major, they take away your brain
- When you make Lieutenant Colonel, they take away your tongue
- when you make Colonel they give you your tongue back
😇
Whatever happened to the Napoleon’s Corporal concept? Somehow we pay lip service-across the services-to NCO’s being the backbone of the branches. Yet, like our own personal health, if we don’t pay for it now in hard work and investing in its functional processes, we’ll pay for it later in our debilitating diseases. The metaphors might be overused, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Re: 'Yet, like our own personal health, if we don’t pay for it now in hard work and investing in its functional processes, we’ll pay for it later in our debilitating diseases.' Couldn't agree more. You been reading my other work? https://downrangedata.substack.com/p/g9-getting-older
I cannot even estimate how many of my ideas were crushed by seniors over 26 years of service. I will admit to being rather liberal with my observations. I knew they were most valid when stolen. Amazing what can happen when you do not care who gets the credit.
I'm 100% guilty of laughing about some of the articles that have emanated from the company grades, true.
But in my defense, the subject has almost always been "Why doesn't the Army do army things exactly how I want it to" and I don't think any of us should encourage the kids who think that a commission means their ideas automatically deserve merit.
A Necessary evil?
It’s all about whose turn it is…
There’s millions of words of regulation that enforce laws about whose turn it is, and a vast HR apparatus to control the rest.
The One Ring turns out to be HR.