Leaderless Teams

Re:Leaderless Teams by eternalban on Tuesday November 08, 2022 @04:32PM (#33524603)

"What emerged from this exercise is that social class, education, gender and athletic ability were less important for leadership than the capacity for an individual to attend to others in the group."

If this experiment was done 80 years and they selected military leadership positions based on this experiment (as it implies by reduced failure rate measure), I don't understand why OP used "gender" in the summary statement above? Did UK actually field troops in WWII led by women?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaderless Teams by travisjungroth on Tuesday November 08, 2022 @08:26PM (#33526569)

> There were over 640,000 women in the armed forces, including The Women’s Royal Naval Service (WRNS), the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force (WAAF) and the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS), plus many more who flew unarmed aircraft, drove ambulances, served as nurses and worked behind enemy lines in the European resistance in the Special Operations Executive.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-women-of-the-second-w...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaderless Teams by eternalban on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @11:19AM (#33533794)

Thank you. Definitely not questioning if women took part in armed forces in UK. I've seen enough WW2 movies. It does makes sense in a wider sense of leadership. I took it for granted they tested only for combat related teams which prompted the question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaderless Teams by travisjungroth on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @11:50AM (#33534283)

Though less of them, there were women combat related teams. Special Operations Executive was a special forces organization with women. British women were also in anti-aircraft units. The limitation was on frontline combat. They still engaged in combat on the home front and behind enemy lines.

[ Parent | on HN ]