The similarities between Military and Business
Controversial Take – by Dominik Rainalter
Hi folks,
Over the last few years, I read a lot about the military and business. The deeper I dove into both topics, the more I noticed many similarities between military and business operations. Moving beyond the familiar discussions of hierarchy and chain of command, let's delve deeper into the striking similarities between military and business operations. Where does the military outshine businesses, and vice versa? Let's get into it.
Business is war!
At its core, the military and businesses share the same fundamental principle. Their sole existence is based on engaging in war. At least in some capacity. In business, for example, you're focused on taking market share from your competitors, increasing revenue, and positioning yourself for future success just as the military prepares to fight for new territory, secure natural resources, or defend the general public from a defined enemy. Both situations are always a battle for dominance, and both are winners and losers.
Despite these shared principles, it's essential to acknowledge the stark differences between the consequences businesses face and the life-and-death scenarios in the military. On the other hand, 99% of the time, it doesn't really matter if a company succeeds or fails because the general good is not affected at all.
There is always an enemy…
… at least there should be one. Whether in business or on the battlefield, there is always an adversary. In the military context, it's pretty obvious. Your enemy is likely another nation, neighbor, or fighting force. Similar to that, businesses find their enemies in their competitors.
Now, in modern corporate language, everybody shies away from calling another company "the enemy" but instead talks about them as "partners" or "competitors." That's absolutely stupid and the reason why most companies fail to differentiate themselves from their competition. They adapt to their rivals, introduce similar structures, systems, and products, and become indifferent. They give potential customers no apparent reason as to why they should do business with them. They lose.
Instead, companies should recover their competitive nature again and choose enemies or declare war on their competitors. Businesses must return to the time when opposing companies' logos or pictures of their opposing CEOs were printed, pinned on the office walls, and used as dart boards. A time when you hired certain people solely to spend their whole time figuring out how to bring down the other business or steal their market share. A time when hating other companies was part of the culture.
Hating the enemy can be a surprisingly effective business strategy because it helps with differentiation. If people hate something, they usually try to be different. Therefore, businesses can position themselves better; it brings better products and services alive, shapes the brand, and makes all that corporate hustle fun.
Also, an excellent side effect of engaging in open war with other companies is that it automatically fills the content calendar for both marketing teams, and offers the opportunity to dominate all social platforms, because it has become such a rarity for companies to shit on each other openly. Therefore, I encourage all businesses to give the people what they want. Choose an enemy. Kill indifference. Go to war!
Strategy
Before you go to war, let's ensure you have a good strategy. Derived from the Greek term "strategos" – the role of the army commander back in ancient Greece – strategy is the lifeblood of both military and business endeavors. Preparation for various scenarios, developing guidelines, the importance of achievable goals, and the implementation of operative actions to achieve those goals are all characteristics that resonate in both areas.
However, the military has the upper hand here, as they are more detailed and more profound when realizing those strategies. But why is that? It is because most military leaders and strategists have been in the trenches before. They have seen what it takes to execute strategies and know what they can and cannot demand from their troops – because they had to deal with the same things and, therefore, can resonate better.
On the contrary, most CEOs of today's world have never seen corporate action daily. Most of them came straight out of business schools, from consulting gigs, etc., and earned their position through networking rather than through their qualification. Therefore, they tend to develop superficial strategies that people need to understand, or they demand unrealistic things from their subordinates. Something I've personally witnessed multiple times. Many recent business studies indicate that most business strategies fail due to a lack of complete execution and follow-through, supporting my take.
Why can't the sales targets be achieved? Maybe it's because the sales reps can't cover the whole state? Maybe because the products don't meet the demand? Maybe because marketing is understaffed? Challenging to understand these issues when you never had to rush for client meetings from coast to coast. Or when you never had to run socials, digital, product, etc. all by yourself. On the other hand, military leaders know precisely what they can demand from their troops because they had to do it themselves. However, they had one advantage over businesses…
Recruiting, training, and development
Again, you draft or recruit people in business and the military. It's precisely the same principle. You want the best soldiers/recruits/operators, executives/content creators/analysts possible. Unfortunately, in both situations, you never have the ideal resources, and you need to make the best of what you have. That's where the military exceeds, and 99% of businesses fail.
In both cases, you start from scratch. Most people usually don't have fighting or working experience. So you have to train them and develop them into something you can use later. For that reason, society created schools, universities, etc. After graduating, these people should be ready for the real world. However, almost anything you learn in school does not translate into the real world.
While most businesses assume that after school, they have a finished product at their disposal, the military stresses the importance of continual staff training to increase skills. People start with basic training, specialize later, undergo several rotational programs, and have a precise skill set before seeing any combat action. Everything is fast, effective, and natural if one's number is called. Through ongoing training, the military maintains that readiness at all times.
In contrast, most businesses don't even have an onboarding program; they offer limited training and development. I witnessed them fearlessly throwing people under the bus without training, introduction, or assistance. This results in high staff turnover, lousy working environments, and overall bad company culture – the critical indicators for failing businesses.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the shared principles of engaging in a form of war, it becomes evident that businesses can learn valuable lessons from the military's approach to leadership, strategy, and continuous training. In recent years, the corporate mindset has shifted into a more collaborative mode, creating many indifferent companies. To differentiate from competitors, companies must resume the competitive approach again and go to war with their counterparts. To accomplish that, businesses need leadership change and follow the military approach of putting people in charge who can grasp all moving parts within an organization and make decisions based on hands-on experience, not business school teachings. Also, the military's continuous training model stands out, ensuring readiness and maintaining a skilled force, a stark contrast to the inadequate training and high turnover often seen in businesses. Ultimately, the military's commitment to ongoing training, strategic depth, and readiness positions it as a superior model compared to enterprises, which frequently grapple with organizational shortcomings.
What do you think about my thought process? What other similarities/differences between military and business operations do you notice? Where do you think both entities can learn from each other? Don't hesitate to let me know your opinions in the comments down below or schedule a call on my Calendly.
Talk to you soon,
Ray