Why Good Generals Are Dependable And Excellent Soldiers Are Reliable

By definition, the words Dependable and Reliable seem interchangeable. One may say, to be Dependable means to be Reliable, and vice versa. But ironically, the difference is just as close and as far apart as that between a frog and a toad. To the naked eye, a toad is froglike just as a frog is toadlike, yet biologically, they can neither interbreed nor freely socialize, for they are from different families and species of amphibians. Each views the other as wildlife or a tasty meal if smaller in size.

But both words help us understand how people, tools, and plans rate relative to their purpose.

Dependable, works better when defining the desired quality levels in people and plans. E.g. "He is a dependable leader".

Reliable fits better when defining the quality of tools and the degree of work execution. We thus need dependable plans and reliable tools and executors if we must excel. Both words work hand in hand. A good plan poorly executed is just as ineffective as a poor plan properly executed.

In life, our multiple roles keep changing even within the same instant. We are generals in some instances and soldiers in others. You could be a general at the workplace and a soldier at home or a general in one social setting and a soldier in another. It all depends on the pecking order. When the boss is around, you become a soldier unless they let you keep the general's hat.

Let's now focus on some examples.

At the workplace, a General Manager in charge of Business Development is under constant pressure from the Chief Accountant and the Operations Manager in his division. The two are competent in their respective areas but feel that either one of them is better at the job than the General Manager is. An all-out war ensues at the expense of work output. Shortly, after experiencing an atmosphere of no support from the top, the GM resigns and finds a job elsewhere. Meanwhile, the Operations Manager takes the reigns and is confirmed as GM.

Within three months, the old GM's absence is felt as new business plummets to levels not seen since inception. The board is concerned as the new GM is out of his depth and is visibly clutching at straws. The Chief Accountant, in his bid to cushion his friend from embarrassment, offers textbook suggestions that the board terms as "a case of moving from bad to worse", if implemented. Evidently, a helpless management team is groping in the dark.

The General with the plan and requisite skills and knowledge was hounded out by the Soldiers in that work arrangement. They are Generals in their own areas of competence. In military lingo, they could not command. When one plays out of place, they can neither be dependable nor reliable.

In another workplace, a hospital is managed by a medical doctor. The boss experiences frequent run-ins with colleagues. This boss reminds everyone that he is both a qualified doctor and a certified manager and hence the right person for the job. He has attended several management courses, evidence of which the framed certificates are prominently displayed from wall to wall in his office. He is an excellent surgeon in his area of specialization and is often relied upon in complex emergency room procedures. But his leadership in the emergency room hasn't translated to anything that is administratively beneficial to the institution.

The hospital was recently audited by the authorities and found wanting in several areas. A follow-up audit in a month may render it shut down and consequently, this could take down hundreds of careers with it.

The hospital board is left with little choice but to hire a renowned management guru as CEO. The current boss reluctantly goes back to full-time surgery.

The new boss invites the audit team ahead of schedule and gets them to discuss their expectations with the first two levels of management—a first in the organization. Most of the team was not aware of the grave situation depicted in the audit report. A joint action plan is put in place and the auditors give them two months to get things going. The new CEO's proactiveness pays off.

Communication and inclusivity improve and the presence of a competent and caring boss is pleasantly felt across the board. Patients give their stamp of approval by returning in droves and the lost glory is fully restored. An implementor (and not a general), highly specialized in one area, had been promoted and left to float around to his point of incompetence.

Most Generals are dependable because they have risen from the trenches where they must have been reliable soldiers to merit the promotions. They have high empathy levels because of starting bottom-up and never midway up. When planning, these Generals understand the mindset of their soldiers and address any inherent challenges before they occur in order to achieve a seamless execution from the team. There is no room for trial and error. That is what dependability is about.

For our military knowledge-rich readers, we as civilians, are not oblivious of the cadet/management trainee recruitment model vis-a-vis that of servicemen. Military norms versus the corporate world norms. The article attempts to make sense of both worlds, after all, to attain the clinical finishing in military precision, corporate strategy borrows heavily from military strategy, save for the regalia bit of course.