Chains of Command...Picard, Worf, Bev...Really????

[Vandervecken]

It's the same with Jellico. He was who he was and he did what he did, which was achieve his mission, and nothing the enemy did was a real impediment to that success. The real impediment was his own crew, and no matter what you think of his "command style," that makes them look bad, not him.

What did the senior staff and Riker actually do to harm/impede the mission? It was a success. Riker didn't relieve himself of duty, that was Jellico's call, so if a few extra minutes were needed to find the right pilot, then that's on Jellico--the man at the top of the pyramid, who gets to have responsibility for it all, particularly effects of his direct decisions, as opposed to uncontrollable factors like negative space wedgies, treachery, Cardassian attacks, etc. If Jellico is a prick, then he can expect some heartburn from senior staff, poor dear. In no military anywhere have such people ever been simply obedient automatons (apologies to Data).

I agree that his command style isn't for them to judge. Starfleet has advanced him for good reasons no doubt and those reasons aren't for Riker et al to second guess. But they're people and he's a person, not just Starfleet. A prick anywhere is simply NOT going to get the exact same results as a person who thinks other fairly experienced, fellow officers deserve some respect, rather than regarding them as one-week cadets. There is also such a thing as the solidarity and the spirit of the officer corps. It's a testament to the professionalism of the Enterprise senior staff that the mission was not affected in the slightest by their dislike of Jellico, a vey dislikable man (mind you, loved Ronnie Cox!)

 

[Paradise City]

A feud the XO started, a well-worn storytelling trope that started with Mutiny on the Bounty...



Scraping that would be unnecessary if the XO had just done his job.



No it's not, and I just told you who is to blame.



And there you go again, talking about "woulda/coulda/shoulda." It doesn't matter what Picard would have done because Picard wasn't there. Jellico was, and he did what he knew best to do and compensated for an uncooperative crew.



Wrong. What gets improved in a military are Training, Doctrine and Technology. Command Structure has only had cosmetic changes throughout history because the basic concept has worked just fine since the creation of massed armed forces: it's a pyramid. The guy at the top of the pyramid gets the last word. Every one else in the pyramid is subordinate to the ones above him and superior to the ones below him. Subordinates follow the orders of superiors. In battle, they follow those orders without question. It is a concept that has been used by every military that has ever existed over the course of thousands of years, and not once has anybody ever added a codicil to it that requires the superior to be nice about it.



Zachary Taylor was a foul-mouthed asshole. He was also one of the US Army's most successful pre-Civil War commanders. Ulysses S. Grant was a drunk. He was also the commander that turned the tide of the Civil War and carried the North to victory. Patton and MacArthur were both egotistical pricks, yet WWII might have gone on a lot longer without the success these two achieved with their campaigns.

Yet, using the logic you've advanced here, they all would have been even more successful if they had just sat down and had heartfelt philosophical discussions with their senior staffs and made their divisions feel more "comfortable" with them.

Yes, we can look back in history and study the characters of men who have changed history and speculate ad nauseum about what would happen if they had different personalities or if they had been replaced altogether, but through all that you have to remember you're examining History. It's not just academic. These men were who they were and they did what they did and no amount of philosophical back and forth will change that.

It's the same with Jellico. He was who he was and he did what he did, which was achieve his mission, and nothing the enemy did was a real impediment to that success. The real impediment was his own crew, and no matter what you think of his "command style," that makes them look bad, not him.

Command structure is subject to change - as just you've admitted after denying it. So, yeah, I'm right on that. And a good commander is always striving to be better and looking for that edge to see his mission to a successful conclusion.

I haven't advocated one leadership style. I've simply said it is the stuff of aspiring commanders to examine and learn from the history of earlier commanders and contribute to the debate if they become instructors, historians or authors of strategy..etc. Laymen, with an interest in history can discuss it over or drink and so on. I have said there could be improvement in Jellicoe's style, that Jellicoe made his own contribution to almost destroying a crucial mission but it is mostly Riker's floundering that almost did wreck the thing. I don't think that can be reasonably contested - but if people want another view of that, work away.

 

[Admiral2]

Command structure is subject to change - as just you've admitted after denying it. So, yeah, I'm right on that.

No, I just said it had been only changed cosmetically. Just because it can be changed doesn't mean it will be, and it won't be when it works the way it is.

And a good commander is always striving to be better and looking for that edge to see his mission to a successful conclusion.

But that same good commander doesn't throw out what works just because it's already been done.

I haven't advocated one leadership style. I've simply said it is the stuff of aspiring commanders to examine and learn from the history of earlier commanders and contribute to the debate if they become instructors, historians or authors of strategy..etc. Laymen, with an interest in history can discuss it over or drink and so on. I have said there could be improvement in Jellicoe's style, that Jellicoe made his own contribution to almost destroying a crucial mission but it is mostly Riker's floundering that almost did wreck the thing. I don't think that can be reasonably contested

The part I contest is that Jellico contributed to the potential failure of the mission. Jellico did his job. The crew of the Ent-D spent more time complaining than doing theirs.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

The pissing contest is over.