The thinking soldier and leader..
-
wat is ure definition of the above topic?
-
only exist in your fantasy
-
both think the other knows what they are doing/suppose to do.Originally posted by sidestep1984:wat is ure definition of the above topic? -
actually many soldiers out there are clever thinking soldiers, but sadly they use their intelligence in the wrong place. like how to chao keng, ways to fake MCs, malingering, report sick to escape duties etc.
-
yup.Originally posted by Gordonator:actually many soldiers out there are clever thinking soldiers, but sadly they use their intelligence in the wrong place. like how to chao keng, ways to fake MCs, malingering, report sick to escape duties etc.
the saf is slowly moving towards this. however its a balance between having soldiers who think and thus question, and having one's command and hence credibility questioned. to have thinking soldiers places even higher demands on the leaders, who not only has to accomodate his subordinates, also has to be thinking and constantly doing so too, both for himself and for his superiors.
however the 2 are not mutually exclusive. the exercise of one's leadership is all the more important now that soldiers do not just follow orders blindly. there is a greater need to communicate the larger goals and motivation behind each move. however, it has to be made clear that arguments belong only to peacetime - when it comes to ops, you may think, but you are also required to follow orders, more likely than not without questioning, as there may not be time and situation for it. -
Every soldier is a thinking soldier.
Problem is what they use their brains on. -
communicate is the point and how it is done will be the key? by just words, actions or both?Originally posted by wuming78:... ... ...
however the 2 are not mutually exclusive. the exercise of one's leadership is all the more important now that soldiers do not just follow orders blindly. there is a greater need to communicate the larger goals and motivation behind each move. however, it has to be made clear that arguments belong only to peacetime - when it comes to ops, you may think, but you are also required to follow orders, more likely than not without questioning, as there may not be time and situation for it.
if a bond was form during peacetime between leader and man, when situation arise, decision/orders been made and i believe no question will be ask from anyman. more so when you come back from the front or make it from the front line and from there on, it like a confirmation, YOU ARE A LEADER.
i will ask lots of question to my OC, S3, S2 (now in my reserve) when situation arise as my man will not ask me any. i think this is the difference what i call the bond, the trust and the acknowledgment between me and my man and mine to my OC, S3 and S2. -
the problem with thinking soldiers is that many NSFs like to be thinking soldiers but the regulars they work under don't like to think and make change.
saf's vision for the thinking army has failed. and it will do so for the next 10 -15 years until a new generation of people who wanna inflict change comes.
speaking of inflicting change, the average singaporean is not receptive of changes. the average singaporean doesn't like to have changes. the average singaporean doesn't like to look at the present situation and see how things can be made better with a simple change. and it is the average singaporean who is your regualar commander in the army. -
The only constant in the world is change, those who dun, will be finding themselves lagging behind.
-
heh heh heh wuming, you just gave the model answer to a commonly asked question.. esp. during LO seminars! i suppose you have had your fair share of it during CTC or in your unit.Originally posted by wuming78:yup.
the saf is slowly moving towards this. however its a balance between having soldiers who think and thus question, and having one's command and hence credibility questioned. to have thinking soldiers places even higher demands on the leaders, who not only has to accomodate his subordinates, also has to be thinking and constantly doing so too, both for himself and for his superiors.
however the 2 are not mutually exclusive. the exercise of one's leadership is all the more important now that soldiers do not just follow orders blindly. there is a greater need to communicate the larger goals and motivation behind each move. however, it has to be made clear that arguments belong only to peacetime - when it comes to ops, you may think, but you are also required to follow orders, more likely than not without questioning, as there may not be time and situation for it. -
hm.. i didnt realise that is a model answer. i just typed whatever came to me then.Originally posted by gonegoose:heh heh heh wuming, you just gave the model answer to a commonly asked question.. esp. during LO seminars! i suppose you have had your fair share of it during CTC or in your unit.
and no, although i have been through CTC during my NSF time (in 2003), this topic was never discussed. and neither was i exposed to this topic in my unit, then or now.
so can i regard your comment as a compliment?
-
Wuming, i'm surprised you weren't exposed to a Learning Army or Learning Organisation (call it whatever you want) package during CTC, esp since you were there in 2003... seeing how Hd SAS and his predecessor being strong advocates of this. Or perhaps you meant no previous experiences in a seminar or forum, anyway, its not impt
What's the right or model answer? I suppose many SAF personnel interpretation of a "thinking soldier" is pretty similiar to yours and is a compliment in a sense that you have not brushed it off as nonsense. Certain elements in the SAF recognises the increasing intelligence of our NSF/NSMen and thus the concept of a "thinking" soldier was born. After saying that, many still struggle with the concept of being questioned and this culture will take some time to set in. And i fully agree with you that in peacetime, let's take time to explain things, etc. But when war happens and the button is pushed, no questions asked!
Previously, leaders only have 2 tools, the carrot or the stick. You either entice your men with benefits/offs or you beat the crap out of him to get him to toe the line, the latter being the favoured one. This concept and notion of a "thinking soldier" and its associated thoughts are simply another way of motivation and leadership.
In an ideal situtation, BOTH the soldier AND the leader must want to be "thinking soldiers" and i have seen first hand of this happening. I have also seen first hand experiences of soldiers (be it NSFs, NSMen or Regulars) who DON'T want to be motivated and the only option is the stick.
I think this topic has been debated and discussed over and over at the height of this campaign, and STILL no one could fully answer all the questions. So i think i might just end it off here!