As a former military leader, the ability to lead is built on a foundation of trust and competence prior to combat. The Army leadership manual is designed as a framework for developing those skills. The military just generally has a higher acceptance of risk up to and including the loss of life. In war, death is expected and factored into the decision making process. You would not see such risk taking in a corporate world. Strict adherence to orders in a life or death situation is required but often those orders are entirely reasonable.

Leading troops in combat is as much a tactical challenge as it is a logistical challenge. As cheesy as it sounds, leadership skills developed prior to and during combat are directly translatable to the corporate world. A great military leader is equally capable of being a great corporate leader. There is nothing specifically in the Army leadership style that could not be applied to a corporate setting.

There are certain things about military command structures that don't apply outside the military, sure.

But people are people, communication is communication and at the end of the day, regardless of what else they are, armed forces are large complicated organizations. It would be foolish to assume that because your organization(s) have different goals and mandates, they have nothing to learn about communication, leadership, training, etc. from decades (at minimum) of well documented armed forces experience.

Great point. Can you please indicate that you read it the linked text, and how the linked text emphasizes the criticisms you raise?

I understand where you're coming from, but realistically no one's going to read an over 100 page document for the purpose of commenting to hacker news. By the time they'd finished it, the thread would be dead for a long time.

From TFA:

> The principal audience for ADRP 6-22 is all leaders, military and civilian