Arguably, if you (theoretical not you whitebelt ) have to yell to get your point across you have already failed as a leader and that's on you for not executing proper training, explaining the reasoning behind actions and so on.
I think it depends on the culture. For example, as a Dane I learned that raising my voice in an argument meant that I lost the argument because I lost my cool. That raising your voice pretty much means you're an idiot w/o self control or awareness. In the US (or Chicago), I learned that if someone is raising their voice at you and you don't raise yours to at least match, you're considered weak or insincere and therefore losing the argument. In one place, arguments are won with cold logic or rhetoric. In the other, arguments are won by the strongest [appearance of] emotions(*).
Perhaps "points" are made the same way depending on who you're talking to.
(*) Maybe sportsball runs on emotions. I've noticed that players are always asked to describe their emotions after a win or a loss and never what they're thinking.
@ffj- I may not have worded my post correctly but I have nothing but respect for those guys. I listen to Jocko's podcasts somewhat religiously. Ive heard him interview Mike Ritland but haven't listened to Mike's podcast. Thanks for the link. Dakota Meyer's story is insane.
That being said i do understand that they have the stereotype within the military of being primadonnas and Jocko has affirmed that before so I am also not surprised at @whitebelt's negative experience with those individuals he has worked with.
While abusive training can certainly be useful in things like the military where even worse situations are inevitable, I personally think most things in life don't fall into that category. Sure, kitchens run on a tight schedule. But should a kid cooking chicken parmesan be subjected to the same stress as a soldier under live fire? Please. You're just being a dick because you know they can't punch back.
One thing I've observed over the years is that naturally power-hungry people have a tendency to worship abusive leaders in their field. In the design industry, Steve Jobs is a god. Steve Jobs was also a notoriously abusive asshole. And a certain subset of design entrepreneurs today justify their own abusive behavior as a sign of strong leadership and cite Jobs as the gold standard. Which is of course a purely self-serving storyline meant to support their own egos.
My dad was a hardcase, his dad was a hardcase and presumably his dad was also a hardcase. I come from a long line of hardcases. Generations of hardcases refining their methods and I am the result. Who am I but an undateable and unhireable ubermensch. A "my way or the highway" personality encased leathery skin and sinew. This must be perfection as I am the end of the line.
I think hardcase attitude works best on humans who usually behave as though 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 is greater than 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8.
Unless it takes a quarter to process each subsequent multiplication, in which case, if you only have half a year to train your troops, it's better to do 8*7*6 than 1*2*3 before you run out of time?
If not mentioned, military basic training / boot camp is not so much used as re-forming a person (it kind of is) but in actuality its primary goal is to filter out those who can't handle a certain level of stress or take basic instructions from a authority figure. I'd say it is about 80% effective.
CS and others hit on a good point about high standards being distinct from abuse. In academia you can see that probably a quarter of the first year PhD students are not really cut out for it. Partially this is because of lack of intelligence/knowledge, but more often because they can't make the jump from the undergrad mindset. In that case demands from the advisor which everyone else can follow results in the student displaying symptoms you might associate with abuse.
CS and others hit on a good point about high standards being distinct from abuse. In academia you can see that probably a quarter of the first year PhD students are not really cut out for it. Partially this is because of lack of intelligence/knowledge, but more often because they can't make the jump from the undergrad mindset. In that case demands from the advisor which everyone else can follow results in the student displaying symptoms you might associate with abuse.
in a scenario like that you could also blame the advisor for their inability to convey to students how to make the jump from the undergraduate mindset. acting like a dickhead is not the right way to treat junior colleagues.
Academia uses the Peter Principle to advance people on something resembling and up or out routine with "research" positions being a possible out insofar you're the only one in the lab or group who knows how to operate some device.
There are some strengths to this in that people higher up the list also have the skills and experience of the lower levels. The weakness to this ladder is that people skills aren't required and selected for until the final couple of steps.
For some people you can explain until you are blue in the face, but the message doesn't get through. A common scenario is that an experiment/process will fail 20 times, the advisor has given all the advice they know on the topic and the literature doesn't have any useful information. It is also known from previous work, maybe something the advisor had tried years ago, that it should likely work, so it is up to the student to make it happen. If you have low frustration tolerance and you are used to crushing problems in your undergraduate classes, this can be a horrifying situation.
i’m not saying that there aren’t inept students, which obviously there are and need to be weeded out. but there are also terrible professors, who may have been good researchers at some point, but can’t or won’t to teach others, either out of ineptitude, jealousy, prejudice, exploitative tendencies, egomania, or some other issues.
toxic mentors are a real thing, and i’m sorry your advisor got booted out, but you probably gotta look at his overall success ratio.
Of course there are. My point was that the convolution of outcomes from shitty bosses and untrainable employees (advisors and PhD students here) was confusing me as to the potential merits of being a hardass.
But everyone else here, myself included, is firmly on the bandwagon of shitty bosses being a thing.
I just meant that responding to dominant behavior with obedience is a quick and dirty hardwired heuristic in humans, just like quick assumption of greater total for equation which rolls out big numbers first.
As an eNTP wimp, my first instinctual reaction is attention given, but my second response from Ti is always “Does this make sense?” towards likely outcome of malicious compliance. For instance, I have been known to politely request ever more refined instructions in reference to arbitrary hardline standards. Other times I might go with something more like “Mmm. Spank me Daddy.” or methods for ignoring dog that barks too much etc. Of course, I also have zero percent team spirit and believe that obedience and loyalty are strongly linked to evil, so MMV.
Organizational dysfunction (thinking family system theory) seems to be so widespread that it is the norm. Also, fear is a powerful motivator. The hardass culture seems to attract people willing to play with the chaos to provide sustaining intermittent reinforcement.
@5Wannabe7
ENTP here...Ah, I love asking questions as my first line of resistance. (My initial reaction is to want to analyze, debate verbally, and not just go along with the hardass mandate as there are certainly better options; however, I find that just pisses the powers that be off faster. Instead I turn that strategy inward and stick around too long trying to improve the situation.) I am all for team spirit, if and when merited (It usually isn’t.). When I was younger and had more options, I’d reach the FU point earlier and find myself reverting back as I decompress from my last quit.
) have to yell to get your point across you have already failed as a leader and that's on you for not executing proper training, explaining the reasoning behind actions and so on.
