Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
I have noticed that there seems to be a resurgence of the promotion of 'management' theories for the military these days... very dangerous... but understandable where an officer corps was selected based on academic ability and not on leadership potential.
vs

Quote Originally Posted by JMA
One studies broadly to learn as much as one can in order to draw on that research for the benefit of one's own environment. Not to look for a solution which can be replicated exactly into one's own environment.
Development of both leadership and management skill sets are a staple of a variety of American Military schools.

For those who have not had the pleasure of attending such a school, or have not been exposed to historical examples of soldiers who are able to wield both skill sets, the exploits of Gen George Patton and his ability to both lead and manage elements of the American Army as they moved from Saarbrucken to Bastogne during WWII are worth review.

In all, Patton would reposition six full divisions (including his 3rd and 12th Army Corps) from their positions on the Saar front along a line stretching from Bastogne to Diekirch to Echternach.[75] Within a few days, more than 133,000 Third Army vehicles were re-routed into an offensive that covered a combined distance of 1.5 million miles, followed by supply echelons carrying some 62,000 tons of supplies.[76]
There are also more recent examples to consider.

Speed Kills: Supply Chain Lessons from the War in Iraq, by Diane K. Morales, Steve Geary, November 1, 2003, Harvard Business Review

Every seasoned leader knows that even the most brilliant strategy is only as good as its execution. Battle plans that seem full of promise on the whiteboard can be undone in the field by clumsy operations or a missing link in the supply chain.
Leadership uber alles briefs well in some utopian quarters, but it does not reflect the demands of the real world upon soldiers.