Management and militarism: Just who are we fighting?
Two of the greatest influences on management thinking and practice have been the militaristic politics of the Roman Empire (via the Roman Catholic Church—a masterpiece of top-down, centralized, hierarchical control) and the world’s armies.
Look at the words we use: “command and control,” “stuck in the trenches,” “didn’t have the firepower.” We “attack the issues head-on.” When people oppose us they “shoot down our ideas” or “get us from behind,” forcing us to “retreat in disorder” or “give up without a fight.”
Management and leadership books are full of military phrases. Leaders are expected to be “steady under fire” and “take the fight to the opposition.” Colleagues praise those who “tough it out” and “show what they’re made of.” For small businesses, there is “Guerilla Marketing.” Even words like strategy, tactics, and leadership itself began on the battlefield.
Does it matter? I think it does. The words we use to describe things reflect our mind-set in thinking about them. To a large extent, they determine the way we think about issues and the solutions we choose.
The distinctive language of Hamburger Management
If a manager describes competition with another company as “a war to the death” or “a fight to the finish,” a subtle message is being conveyed that this isn’t going to be a civilized rivalry between organizations. Warlike language produces warlike thoughts. If a team is told to “take the other guys down,” they’re not going to hear that as an instruction to behave with courtesy, sensitivity, or understanding.
All this macho, militaristic language, with its overtones of fighting and winning, inevitably produces an effect in the hearers. If we constantly “attack problems” and “take no prisoners,” where is the need to understand or get to the heart of issues? In our haste to “chalk up a victory,” there’s no space or time for compassion or thoughtfulness.
Militaristic language is also quintessentially masculine. Perhaps that’s another, hidden aspect of the problems women face in organizations. If success is described in masculine terms—“winning the fight” and “destroying the opposition”—it’s little wonder if career women feel the only way to succeed is to take on masculine attributes.
Hamburger Management—that mix of aggression, cost-cutting, macho posturing, and ultra-short-term thinking that characterizes so many organizations today—uses harsh and warlike language almost as a reflex. That’s because it so accurately represents that way of thinking, with its emphasis on winning at all costs and “taking no prisoners.” And the more that type of language is accepted into executive suites, board rooms, and even training classes, the less likely we are to see the behavior implied by such language as unacceptable in any way.
Beware what you call things
It’s time we thought more carefully about the words we use and what that is doing to our thinking. Are the military virtues of aggression, dash, obedience, and heroic resistance truly what we need in organizational life? Do we want every disagreement turned into a “last-ditch defense” and every rivalry into a “fight for territory?”
William Tecumseh Sherman said “War is cruelty” and he knew, better then most, what he was talking about. Importing the language of war into boardrooms and management suites quickly brings some of the cruelty along with it.
At the start of the twenty-first century, it seems our corporate leaders —like many of our middle managers too—are being encouraged to act more like Roman centurions battling the barbarian hordes than thinking, civilized managers.
Is that what we really want? When managers retire, do we want the “war stories” they tell their grandchildren to be truly tales of war?
Be careful with your words. People around you will pick up on the overtones and subtle implications of what you say, as much as the meaning itself. Your subordinates will often act as you sound, not just as you ask. Customers too.
Unless you want your daily work to take place on a battleground, try using language that better expresses the civilized arena we would all like our workplaces to become.
Adrian Savage is a writer, an Englishman, and a retired business executive, in that order, who now lives in Tucson, Arizona. You can read his other articles at Slow Leadership, the site for everyone who wants to build a civilized place to work and bring back the taste, zest and satisfaction to leadership and life, and its companion site Slower Living. His recent articles on similar topics include When organizational loyalty creates a culture of fear and The importance of NOT doing things. His latest book, Slow Leadership: Civilizing The Organization, is now available at all good bookstores.
Tags: 
Loading ...
Comments
Mark says on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:40 am
I understand what you’re trying to say, but using military jargon as an example is a little far-fetched. You can’t possibly compare the board room to the battlefield because they’re just not the same – I’ve been in both. Just because both share a similar lexicon does not mean the tactics are the same – “give up without a fight” takes on different meanings depending on the context in which you use it. Certainly, it would be unacceptable to physically fight your opponent in business, whereas, it’s sometimes necessary in the context of war. This same lexicon can be found in other parts of our culture, like sports for example.
Based on your last statement, it sounds like you think the workplace is an “arena” where chaos and battles reign. I believe the workplace is actually one of the last places that are civilized, albeit overly “politically correct”.
“no space or time for compassion or thoughtfulness” is a people problem, not a lexicon problem.
Peter Fitzgerald says on October 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am
Mark,
While I agree that there is a vast difference in the reality of war and the civilized workplace, there are attitudes expressed by a lexicon based on clearly military traditions. I do say “clearly military traditions” purposefully, in that many elements of the lexicon are not obviously connected for people in the modern world.
It is possible to change attitudes by using or changing a lexicon. One only has to look at the variety of movements that have introduced the “politically correct” attitudes and what real changes those verbal adjustments have changed. From feminism to civil rights, the movements have forced a change of lexicon and context to change attitudes.
The importance and power of words is as much in their implied attitudes as their direct meanings.
Bill says on October 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
We also see this in the world of politics. Aside from the obvious guns-and-tanks wars, we hear politicians talk about the “War on Drugs”, the “War on Poverty”, etc. And just like a guns-and-tanks war, politicians will use these concepts to justify a whole host of rights-violating policies and a with-us-or-against-us mentality.
Bob says on October 22nd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Not to mention the fact that the people at the bottom of the military hierarchy were often peasants and treated as cannon fodder, while the people at the bottom of the corporate hierarchy are often highly educated and well trained.
Colonel Giggles says on October 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I was once on the receiving side of a corporate initiative to use actual military jargon, wherein I was labeled a private and the management called themselves sargents, colonels, and so forth. It didn’t last long because it was giggled more or less out of existence, especially since several of the “privates” had been in the military and knew that the ranks assigned weren’t correct.
Even if you’re going to adopt a war paradigm for running your business the in your face, blow ‘em up, gung ho, take no prisoners jingoism doesn’t work very well because you reveal your intentions when you start dropping bombs on the competition, so to speak.
If you’re going to conduct a “business war”, doesn’t it make sense to adopt a paradigm of stealth and cleverness instead? But of course there wouldn’t be any dramatic fireworks in that, now would there. No bombs, missiles or flying body parts that make for dramatic visual effects.
But adopting a stance of stealth and cleverness would actually mean thinking and planning carefully. An outright attack is a lot simpler and easier because once the battle is joined the issues are simple: it’s US against THEM, and we have to kill THEM before they kill US. I keep getting the impression that a lot of business owners lost their patience with complexity, subtlety, self control, and planning and so end up having a corporate temper tantrum of open aggression.
The point I’m trying to make is even if you take it at face value, the war nomenclature that Adrian Savage is referring to doesn’t work very well because you reveal your intentions to your “enemy.”
Jeff says on October 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
While I couldn’t agree more with you on the importance of choosing your words (and the ridiculousness of using militaristic language in a business environment), I must take issue with your opening statement about the Catholic Church. First, the Roman Empire existed long before the Church came into being, and it’s dominant, militaristic methods were well entrenched (even beginning to decline) by the time the Church was starting to form. In fact, during the first couple of centuries the Church was regarded as a fringe group of people. Members had to meet in secret, and hold services in private homes in order to avoid being arrested by Roman authorities. It was hardly a group that would have had an influence on the Roman rulers.
Secondly, as a Roman Catholic myself I can say that the Church does not encourage the use of the militaristic language you mention in your article. At it’s’ core, the Church teaches love of neighbor and that we should respect even those that oppose us (for whatever reason). While the Church is assuredly a hierarchical organization, the goal of that hierarchy is to have a consistent message for all believers, not to be rigid and army-like.
Again I appreciate your points. Like other responders, I, too have lived through the multiple gyrations of the latest management fads, including the cut throat, military-like fads. They ust don’t work in the business world, where most of us want to get along and play nice.
Thanks!