Our Lefty Military

[bruno]

Hornet is correct. You CAN compare "Apples to Oranges". I have a colleague here at the school I work at that teaches students how to do JUST that. BTW-She teaches QM or Quantitative Methods and she actually uses the book by Angrist & Pischke.

While I am no EXPERT on the subject, I am reading the book to better my knowledge and insight so that I can give more depth in my Org Theory Class.

It's true you can compare Apples and Oranges -somewhat. Good to know the difference though. It's kind of a problem if an Orange Grove Owner in McAllen in Deep South Texas in the Rio Grande Valley (where it is basically an Oven for half the year) decides to plant Apple trees in the middle of his groves. After all - he knows lots about good practices for "growing fruit". But Apple trees require a different environment and most of what he does to raise his oranges is inapplicable to the Apple business. So- comparisons that ignore fundamental differences of environment can academically be made, but practically they often have a rather limited utility.
Kristoff is a smart and accomplished journalist- but plenty of those out there- to be articulate and well educated doesn't mean he's right or that his insight is unquestionable. In this article, notice that he has taken programs and implied that they are "liberal" rather than innovative and appropriate for the situation. But plenty of "conservative" businesses have adopted many of these same programs for their own situations where they are appropriate. What Mr Kristoff is attempting to do is wrap the popularity of the military around social programs that he advocates. Clever approach.

I don't think there were any posters who disagree that the military has a lot of progressive personnel programs which have been very successful at attracting and retaining top notch personnel and which have had some very beneficial side affects for the population who have served. But many of those same posters are pretty leary about extrapolating success in a self selected organization of 2 million with coercive powers and applying those lessons to a society of 300 million people. It is a case of applying specific Orange tree growing techniques and planting Apple trees in the Rio Grande Valley and expecting a great crop of MacIntosh apples.

Kristoff was a Rhodes scholar which means he's a bright guy and a bright journalist. It doesn't mean that I need to agree or fawn over his commentary as it applies to the political landscape. It's nice to see the article because frankly it helps military guys dispel the impression that we are knuckle dragging cretins who accomplish our missions by coercion and raised voices. In short- the more folks who learn that the Military approaches personnel management issues and problems creatively with positive leadership and management techniques, the more job opportunities military vets will get when they exit the military.

 

[HMQ]

. . . In short- the more folks who learn that the Military approaches personnel management issues and problems creatively with positive leadership and management techniques, the more job opportunities military vets will get when they exit the military.

Precisely the point! “The Military approaches personnel management issues and problems creatively, with positive leadership and management techniques . . .” And these are the very fundamental qualities which serve as the role model, and could be adapted elsewhere! I agree, one-size does not fit-all – but I don’t agree with the black-and-white view that this is an all-or-nothing proposition. In business (and life, for that matter) we can always learn from the successes of others, and figure out how those lessons can be tailored to work in different situations.

That’s my take-away from the article, and I’m running out of metaphors!

(Oh, and by the way, the “$245,000 per person” figure cited by an earlier poster includes the cost of a lot of very expensive equipment and overhead – yes – unique to the Military – - now that’s comparing apples to oranges )

 

[Packer]

In the so called socialist system within the military everybody gets these great health care, child care, education, etc. benefits so long as they pull their weight. If they are not pulling their weight they are not in the military for long. Same with some businesses that voluntarily offer the same kind of great benefits. In society at large what do we do with those that don't pull their weight? We support them. The incentive to work is removed over time as you get the same benefits whether you pull your weight or not.

Businesses and the military provide these benefits because they believe it is in their best interests. If it ceases to be in their best interest they make adjustments. In business the system is self supporting. The military is supported by the tax payers.

Can you compare apples and oranges? Sure. You just cherry pick the data to support the desired outcome. Works great on paper not so good when put into practice.

If we can think of a few more fruits to throw in we will have a salad.

 

[Packer]

There is no somewhat about it. We have the tools to compare a multitude of subjects that are not related. It gives us the ability to compare the "Apples and Oranges" in a way that will allow us to see what works (or doesn't work) for the oranges and then see if it will help or harm the apples.

Using Bruno's great example regarding Oranges in the Rio Grande Valley and the thought of planting Macintosh apples there...well I am sure that if we broke down the data it would tell us if it was a good idea or not. In this case, I doubt that it would be, but then again, the data may show us that while Macintosh apples would not grow well in the Rio Grand, it might grow well in Lubbock County TX. BTW- I have picked apples in Lubbock County TX. They were gala by the way.

To a point it amazes me how many of us have come from similar backgrounds and yet our paradigms are so different. Many of you read the same article that I did, yet I saw it in a different light.

Today I cannot tell you how often I hear people say we need a change in this country. ( I agree and I primarily think it needs to start with personal responsibility) Many people seemed overly focused on our national debt, which does need to come down. I also see way too many people point to big business as the logical solution to help our national debt. While I would agree that many of our top businesses do set some wonderful examples, I can also point out some not so great examples (GM Comes to mind) as well. I see Kristof pointing out this Big Business paradigm and then I see him wanting to engage the conversation further by pointing out another paradigm involving our military. That is all I really see in the article….a conversation starter! I see nothing else. Oh and you know what….purely from an academic standpoint, I think his idea would be well worth the look.

TPG: Here we are in agreement. I actually agree with you on being able to compare apples and oranges as well. However, often data is used to support a pre-conceived conclusion. The data is taken out of context, manipulated, etc. I have no data and what I have stated is simply my opinion.

 

[Christcorp]

I guess my position and viewpoint, is that in order to make such changes to the civilian world; however possible and compared to the military; would require more government involvement and more "Socialism". And that is one thing I believe we need LESS of. But then, there are a lot of people who don't interpret the constitution the way I do, and they are all in favor of having the federal government more involved in our lives.

Now; if these comparisons and possible changes could be done at the "State Level", and not with federal government involvement, I'd probably be OK with it. Then again; I'm all for eliminating many federal agencies and programs such as the department of education, interior, health/human services, etc... These responsibilities need to go back to the states where they belong. And many government agencies like the DOE need to be dissolved.

 

[bruno]

I also see way too many people point to big business as the logical solution to help our national debt. While I would agree that many of our top businesses do set some wonderful examples, I can also point out some not so great examples (GM Comes to mind) as well.

Well- working for a company that has about 225,000 employees, I'm always deeply skeptical of those who argue that the private sector is the most efficient provider of solutions and services compared to the Government. I can only speak for my own organization, but we have our own totally disconnected bureaucracy that is just as hidebound, user unfriendly and inwardly focused as any government agency. Many of the businesses that I deal with fall into this same characterization- short sighted, bottom line driven to the extent that we can't and won't look at anything other than the immediate needs of the moment in order to maximize this quarters Operating Profit and Return on Investment. There are lots of things that Private Industry and any other organization private or public can learn from the military about attracting, training and retaining personnel, long term planning, and operational leadership and management. But frankly I didn't see Kristoff's article as talking about what individual organizations can learn from the military and I don't believe he intended it to be read that way. The terms Liberal and Lefty are social and political ones and Kristoff is deliberately pitching these as a model for society in general to adopt. (He is a journalist for the New York Times and that is one of the things that he writes about). So from my perspective, I think that countering this article by pointing out that he is confusing organizational needs and behavior with general societal behavior is a pretty valid point to be made.


This kind of reminds me of the folks who look at the benefits of Basic Training for new soldiers: "it straightens out confused kids, gives them discipline and helps them grow etc...." and from that came up with the "boot camps for juvenile offenders which a number of Cities/States rolled out about 10 years ago. Those programs haven't been very successful - and actually it's pretty easy to see why. In joining the military- they enlisted, they have an end in sight and they basically care that they are successful. But in those boot camp programs, all of the outward trappings are similar to the military boot camp, but the circumstances are different and the results are really different. It seems to me that is true of most of these- good programs that are successful in specific circumstances but which aren't particularly transferrable to a completely differnet environment and circumstances.

I like reading articles that are thought provoking- and I also like picking them apart for their strengths and weaknesses. In this case- I can see all kinds of implications for civilian businesses, but when you start talking about lessons for society in general- I just can't see it.
Eh- the beauty of this is that you don't have to agree. As long as the discussion is civil and reasonably well thought out, the forum is functioning the way it ought to.