The military definitely standardizes the details. Anybody who's been in the military knows this. Here's the US Navy/USMC guide to formatting correspondence and memos.[1] They use Times New Roman. (Upgraded in 2018 from Courier New.)
Consistency in the details means that the failure modes are known. This is a big help when you have to bring everything you need.
[1] https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/SECNAV%20M%20...
James Beniger and JoAnne Yates are amongst two scholars who've studied and written on this in detail. Beniger's book, The Control Revolution (1986) particularly.
I've had jobs where my mission parameters were outlined (we gotta achieve X by Y date) and I've had jobs that were vague opportunity areas (here's a team of X people, we think there's an opportunity in Y, see what you can do). The "worst" is I've had managers that asked me a ton of annoying questions to make sure I've done my due diligence, which in retrospect I appreciate.
So I guess that's to say, at least some "civilian jobs" offer that indeed so don't be discouraged - hopefully you will eventually be in one that gives you more latitude.
Edward Deci's Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation is a great book on this.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder
The military requires that orders show "commander's intent". This matters when circumstances change and some subordinate has to adapt the plan. "The enemy gets a vote." Officers and noncoms are then expected to change plans to achieve the commander's intent by other means. It's not about blind obedience.
USMC doctrine:
Mission tactics are just as the name implies: the tactic of assigning a subordinate mission without specifying how the mission must be accomplished. We leave the manner of accomplishing the mission to the subordinate, thereby allowing him the freedom and establishing the duty to take whatever steps he deems necessary based on the situation.
The senior prescribes the method of execution only to the degree that is essential for coordination. It is this freedom for initiative that permits the high tempo of operations that we desire. Uninhibited by restrictions from above, the subordinate can adapt his actions to the changing situation. He informs his commander what he has done, but he does not wait for permission.
It is obvious that we cannot allow decentralized initiative with- out some means of providing unity, or focus, to the various efforts. To do so would be to dissipate our strength. We seek unity, not through imposed control, but through harmonious initiative and lateral coordination.
We achieve this harmonious initiative in large part through the use of the commander’s intent. There are two parts to a mission: the task to be accomplished and the reason, or intent. The task describes the action to be taken while the intent describes the desired result of the action. Of the two, the intent is predominant. While a situation may change, making the task obsolete, the intent is more permanent and continues to guide our actions. Under- standing our commander’s intent allows us to exercise initiative in harmony with the commander’s desires.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_paragraph_order
[2] https://theusmarines.com/wp-content/uploads/docs/FMFM_1-1.pd...