[August 31, 2014] It is often said that the performance of a leader in a garrison environment cannot predict how that leader will do in combat. This well-known rule of human performance has been recorded since the time of the Roman Empire. Under peaceful, less dangerous circumstances, the military leader has command priorities that differ from combat where death is a constant.
“Inquiries are now no longer made about customs that have been so long neglected, because in the midst of peace, war is looked upon as an object too distant to merit consideration.” – Vegetius
In peace, the military leader’s priority is to ensure that the welfare of his troops is sustained. The leader shows great interest and sees to the care of those things that support them. Such is the basis for success of a military commander. The credibility and prestige of the leader a is at stake by those who serve under such a leader. Out of necessity this includes the proper training of the troops so soldiering skills are carefully honed.
Yet in combat, the priority of the leader shifts to another. This commander takes a keen interest in the tactical problems of the troops. The leader in comb at must prove to those who serve him that all things possible will be done to help them solve those problems. Such is the nature of combat as compared to all other times. The best of leaders take a personal interest in solving those problems because the lives of the troops depend upon it.
It takes direct experience in combat to fully understand and appreciate this basic rule of human performance … and that is why so many leaders fail in combat that were successful in garrison. They are unable to make the transition of priorities from garrison to combat.
[Don’t forget to “Like” the Leader Maker at our Facebook Page.]
—————————
[For writings of Vegetius see this link] http://www.digitalattic.org/home/war/vegetius/