In the corporate space many of the younger people I have worked with feel, to me, extraordinarily fragile. We all have fear and we all make mistakes. Sometimes I would rather shoot myself in the face than point out a minor shortcoming. Sometimes the result is a long series of excuses and justifications (deliberately not listening and having a one way conversation with themselves to you) and on rare occasions the response is immediate hostility. I don't know everything, but I have been in this line of work for 20 years and I do feel justified in thinking I might be able to offer advice or technical guidance to somebody who has been doing it for 6 months or less.
Older developers I have worked with in the corporate world tend to be a bit rigid and stuck in their ways, which is completely expected. Although this is not a surprise it does prove a bit frustrating when it comes to exploring newer technologies or open-mindedness to new approaches.
In the military you often don't get a vote upon the technology, the environment, the people you work with, or really anything. You realize you are an adult. You suck it up and try to make the best of it. As crappy as that may at first sound it is a forcing function with some really positive results. You have to be flexible. You have to embrace new things. You have to work with all kinds of people.
Confrontation is common in the military. There really is a such thing as positive confrontations. Positive confrontations are necessary to develop people. This exists in the corporate world as well, but its generally hidden behind directors and senior managers where tiny contributors like me don't see it.
Ownership of work is vital to motivation. The military has figured this out. Some of the corporate world has figured this out, but usually not. People have to be allowed to fail in order to feel the pressure to grow. Let's not forget corporate employees are adults and they need mentorship not helicopter parents.
As an example tell a JavaScript developer they can't use their favorite framework. Tell them they actually have to write original code and solve problems. Oh, the crying...
Sometimes new things very clearly flashes in the pan, and sometimes people are clearly on their way out the door, and applying a forcing function doesn't change that, though.
That dev who "cried" and was "hostile" for not being able to use a framework, was it really hostility or just frustration?
Just something to think about! :) Thanks for sharing.
EDIT: I removed most of my reply because it really was too much.
> Did you ever consider...
Well, yeah, they probably have given 20 years thinking about this. And the nuance of a reply would probably take time and several more paragraphs.
I am genuinely interested to hear this view of the military, since I've heard that sentiment elsewhere before (that it is effective specifically in ways that corporate entities fail comically), but having no experience (no interest) in joining-up, I haven't understood what's behind it. I would _love_ for the parent to elaborate and welcome more. Sure, a lot of software isn't life or death, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from effective teams and organizations, wherever they are.
This reminds me of a piece I've read on Habr, a Russian platform in a format similar to HN. An older dev was talking about how the younger-gen devs he's working with act as if they feel personally attacked (perhaps they do) after their mistake was pointed out to them. He mentioned the not-being-able-to-work-with-favorite-framework bit, but the focus was elsewhere.
The older dev was mostly talking about bearing one's responsibility and being able to take it – as in, withstand stress and suck it up when necessary – which the younger devs have a problem with.
> In the army this idea about bosses is and large organizations is mostly (not completely though) upside down. In the military this can really work for you if you are engaged and your primary leader isn't a criminal.
Does that means that in the military people lower in the ranks are much more self-motivated and self-directed?
The minimal expectation is that low ranking service members have the proper pieces in place to make good decisions. When they make bad decisions it is them plus their boss (and sometimes the boss's boss) that gets destroyed. This puts pressure on the boss to ensure their people are well informed. In the corporate world if a contributor fails horribly you simply fire them and wash your hands of it. It is highly unlikely the boss will receive legal prosecution for the contributor's failures even those failures result from a lack of governance or proper policy.
Could you try? This is really interesting!