The reason I write about this is because many military officers are putting "command" down as a skill, strength or achievement in their resumes while seeking re-employment in civvy street. I guess the reason is that it appears to equate to leadership. Is it? While "military leadership" is associated with command (and therefore the reason for all the confusion), "leadership" in civvy street is defined more as a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the willing aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task."
Command as we understand it in the military is the exercise of authority at all levels in the military hierarchy, where the scope of the authority is vested in the rank held by the individual. The military understand this well and this is accepted as routine.
However in civvy street, "command" has an altogether different connotation. It is considered autocratic, associated with arrogance ("of power") and is placed at one extreme end of the spectrum of leadership styles.
At the other end is laissez-faire or free reign. In between these two extremes is where most of the present day corporate leadership styles permeate and the trend is most definitely to the right of the spectrum (see diagram above).
The work world is becoming more and more technically complex and knowledge resides with specialist employees. The management of such employees requires a different set of leadership attributes than the one normally used in the military. Approaches in the participative style, such as "consensus building", is almost alien in the military.
So, bottomline is that once you hang up your boots, hang up terms such as "command" too. Veterans who have already made the transition will understand what you have done without your having to spell it out. For the rest, the terms will either been totally alien, or evoke mirth!
That cannot possibly be your objective.
Command as we understand it in the military is the exercise of authority at all levels in the military hierarchy, where the scope of the authority is vested in the rank held by the individual. The military understand this well and this is accepted as routine.
However in civvy street, "command" has an altogether different connotation. It is considered autocratic, associated with arrogance ("of power") and is placed at one extreme end of the spectrum of leadership styles.
At the other end is laissez-faire or free reign. In between these two extremes is where most of the present day corporate leadership styles permeate and the trend is most definitely to the right of the spectrum (see diagram above).
The work world is becoming more and more technically complex and knowledge resides with specialist employees. The management of such employees requires a different set of leadership attributes than the one normally used in the military. Approaches in the participative style, such as "consensus building", is almost alien in the military.
So, bottomline is that once you hang up your boots, hang up terms such as "command" too. Veterans who have already made the transition will understand what you have done without your having to spell it out. For the rest, the terms will either been totally alien, or evoke mirth!
That cannot possibly be your objective.
I totally agree with you. "Command" is positional, whereas leadership is a trait of personality. It is the latter that corporates seek. Having "commanded" does not automatically demand respect; rather posturing on the strength of having held a position of command may only lead to derission and ridicule by the civvy street anf result in stereotypical carricatures of defence veterans.
ReplyDelete