Jump to content


What The #$%& Is With The State Of Gaming In General?

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#81 bojan



  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,254 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 16 May 2019 - 0557 AM

It is a point of every "team building" that 1/2 would be angry with other 1/2.

  • 0

#82 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 16 May 2019 - 0629 AM

Looking back, I think it was one of the building blocks that resulted in me losing my job. So it was well worth it from that perspective. :)

  • 0

#83 Harold Jones

Harold Jones

    Shaken but not deterred...

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Armor, History, Fishing and Beer

Posted 16 May 2019 - 0941 AM

Best team building ever was a day at the paint ball park.  There is just something satisfying in popping your boss in the face* during a game of kill the zombie.



*we had full face shields so head shots were allowed and encouraged.

  • 0

#84 Skywalkre


    Garry F!@#$%g Owen

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ
  • Interests:military history, psychology, gaming (computer, board, simulation, console), sci-fi

Posted 16 May 2019 - 1014 AM


If there is one universal constant, corporations in general and tech firms in particular are notoriously bad at developing leadership skills. They train managers, or simply promote the best techies into a job where they have more and more responsibility for people - the polar opposite to what they're good at. My impression is that, irrespective of actual results, militaries are the only organization that attempts to develop leadership skills in a systematical way.

At the same time - especially in larger corporations that are listed at a stock exchange, with the duty to report quarterly results - the implicit and explicit incentives are usually contrary to, or at best indifferent towards a good "employee experience", if we want to call it like that. So, people with actual leadership skills may still retain and improve them despite the environment in wich they operate. In the military, people are less talented still get a chance to develop the necessary skillset. Some don't, of course, and can still get promoted to the highest ranks where they can arguably become even more destructive than the worst bankster sociopaths (think Haig, Westmoreland, Zapp Brannigan). But that doesn't change the fact that corporations by and large fail to grasp that you manage things, but that you must lead people.


This is not strictly accurate, large corporations spend tons of money to train people managers, specially if they come from tech backgrounds in the forms of MBAs and other leadership education, which is better than anything military, but the larger the corporation, the most likely that power politics will develop as the scope of control of the top management (which sets strategy) is exceeded - this will lead to bureacracy as each middle manager creates his personal empire, and this will permeate down the organisation to the point that significant stuff is being held by a low level guy sited in India because he didn't got for 901A-P7 adequately signed.


This will eventually lead to people gaming the system and eventually becoming the CEOs and such, but not understanding why stuff doesn't get done like they want to.


BTW, Armies and navies work exactly the same, see the proportion of generals to soldiers in modern armies.



The bolded bit has me curious... are those civilian courses really better than what the military does? 


On paper the amount of time the military spends on training leaders (and everyone) is far above what you see in the civilian sector.  In reality, as my own experience showed, a lot of what was supposed to be happening at the unit level was ignored or just hand-waved away (due to bad leadership or at the time the crunch of constant deployments).


On the civilian side, in the US again, with every school throwing up a half-ass online option and with the rise of all these no-name for-profit schools offering MBAs and such are said courses really of any value to those taking them?  I wouldn't be surprised that courses and instruction run out of somewhere like Harvard Business are probably the best in the world... but what about what your average American has access to?


Tie this back in with the point of this thread.  In many of these studios that have gone to shit the original folks who led them to greatness were just nerds with dreams.  Many of them have moved on and these studios are now filled with the MBA-types who, in theory, should be running things even better.  Instead they're running these companies into the ground.


It's a really interesting question...

Edited by Skywalkre, 16 May 2019 - 1015 AM.

  • 0

#85 RETAC21


    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 16 May 2019 - 1437 PM

Well, you get what you pay for, expensive ones tend to be good or they won't sell, internet courses, not so much. Like I said somewhere else, education is a tool, if you have a good tool to value it, if it's just a filler, you won't care.


In the .mil there isn't such a choice and IME much is evaluated based on what's worth in the civilian world. Note that this is based on casual conversation rather than deep study.

  • 0

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users