????

????幾十年來,，部隊的將軍或軍官在退伍后,，往往會進入公司的高管辦公室，雄心勃勃地開始自己的嶄新生涯,，而他們的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)能力幾乎都會受到眾人的交口稱贊,。

????聯(lián)邦快遞（FedEx）的弗雷德?史密斯、電子數(shù)據(jù)系統(tǒng)公司（EDS）的羅斯?佩羅特這些退伍老兵在二戰(zhàn),、越南戰(zhàn)爭和朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭后都為各自公司的發(fā)展立下了汗馬功勞,。

????而在幾十年后的今天，隨著美國的最后一場戰(zhàn)爭落下帷幕,，越來越多的士兵退伍,，許多人產(chǎn)生了疑問：運轉(zhuǎn)良好、層級分明的軍隊領(lǐng)導(dǎo)體系在企業(yè)界的價值是否依然如故,？

????隨著曝光的現(xiàn)役人員性騷擾和士兵自殺案件日益增長,，美國核戰(zhàn)略指揮部的成員也傳出欺詐和酗酒丑聞，自上而下的軍隊管理風(fēng)格受到了幾十年來最為密切的關(guān)注,。

????盡管像通用汽車（General Motors）,、威瑞森（Verizon）和強生（Johnson & Johnson）這樣的公司目前仍由退伍軍人掌權(quán)，然而比起二三十年前,，如今跨入企業(yè)界的高階士兵數(shù)量有所減少,。不過，沙場老兵們卻是急于儲備中層管理和領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者的公司眼中的香餑餑,。

????從沙場到管理團隊的轉(zhuǎn)變引發(fā)了人們的疑問：傾向于壓制疑問和異議的軍事管理會讓公司付出代價,，還是正好相反，會讓公司受益呢,？

????后一種觀點得到了公眾的廣泛認可,，軍隊的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力評分始終高居其他領(lǐng)域之上。哈佛大學(xué)肯尼迪學(xué)院（Harvard Kennedy School）公共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)中心（Center for Public Leadership）發(fā)布的最新版年度《國家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力指數(shù)》（National Leadership Index）指出,，美國人只對軍事和醫(yī)療部門的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力有著“平均水平之上的信心”,。2012年的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力指數(shù)顯示，軍隊連續(xù)第18年超越其他13個領(lǐng)域,，獲得最高評分,。排在軍隊和醫(yī)療類別之后的，分別是非盈利和慈善團體,、地方政府和宗教機構(gòu),。

????退伍的陸軍上校、圣迭戈大學(xué)（University of San Diego）公共領(lǐng)導(dǎo)專業(yè)的教授喬治?E?里德說：“軍隊一直保持著最高評分，也是唯一一個自信滿滿的領(lǐng)域,?！?/p>

????不過，里德也提倡人們用公正的眼光看待軍隊的領(lǐng)導(dǎo),。十年前,，他在美國陸軍戰(zhàn)爭學(xué)院（Army War College）講課時，有士兵警告稱：出口傷人,、夸夸其談的“毒瘤領(lǐng)導(dǎo)”正在指揮系統(tǒng)中步步高升。根據(jù)對這些士兵的采訪,，他撰寫了一篇報告,，開創(chuàng)了一個全新領(lǐng)域。

????里德表示,，隨著伊拉克和阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭打響,，軍隊當時沒有做好準備來深入探討領(lǐng)導(dǎo)問題。他說：“我只是那飄散在風(fēng)中的聲音,?！钡J為在當今時期，軍隊可以更廣泛地審視自身的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)措施,。

????里德說：“不僅僅是回顧一下成功的往昔,。我們猶豫著是否要把軍隊領(lǐng)導(dǎo)失靈的情況記錄下來。這也是我們領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力的傳奇的一部分,?！?/p>

????由馬薩諸塞州坎布里奇（Cambridge, Mass.）的獨立機構(gòu)美國國家經(jīng)濟調(diào)查局（National Bureau of Economic Research）主持研究的一份報告顯示，士兵出身的首席執(zhí)行官傾向于作出較為保守的投資決定,，也不太認可公司的欺詐行為,。

????For decades, former generals or officers frequently found high-flying new careers in corporate executive suites, and their leadership was almost universally lauded.

????Ex-servicemen like Fred Smith at FedEx (FDX) and Ross Perot at EDS helped remake the corporate landscape in the years after World War II and the Vietnam and Korean wars.

????Now, decades later, as the country's latest wars wind down and more soldiers exit the military, many are questioning whether the hierarchical military leadership that traditionally worked so well is still as valuable in the corporate world.

????The top-down military leadership style is coming under scrutiny more intensely than in recent decades as reports surface of rising numbers of in-service sexual assaults and soldier suicides as well as cheating and drinking by members of the nation's nuclear command.

????While the number of high-ranking soldiers migrating to the executive suite has dwindled compared to two or three decades ago -- although companies like General Motors (GM), Verizon (VZ), and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) are currently led by ex-servicemen -- veterans are being sought by companies anxious to stock their middle management ranks with tested leaders.

????The shift from the fighting fields to the executive ranks has triggered examination of whether military leadership, which tends to squelch questioning and dissent, winds up costing companies or, by contrast, benefiting them.

????The latter view is widely embraced by the public, which consistently rates military leadership atop other occupational fields. The most recent National Leadership Index, prepared annually by the Harvard Kennedy School's Center for Public Leadership, found Americans surveyed nationwide had "above-average confidence" only in the military and medical sectors. The 2012 index was the eighth year in a row in which the military won the top spot over 13 other fields. Nonprofits and charities, local government, and religious institutions followed behind the military and medical categories.

????"The military consistently receives top ratings and is the only segment where there is a great deal of confidence," says George E. Reed, a retired military colonel who is a professor of public leadership at the University of San Diego.

????But Reed also advocates a balanced look at military leadership. While teaching at the Army War College, he broke new ground a decade ago when he wrote a report based on interviews with soldiers warning of abusive, self-aggrandizing "toxic leaders" promoted up the chain of command.

????But with wars raging in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military was not prepared for an in-depth examination of leadership issues at the time, says Reed. "I was a voice in the wind," he notes. But he thinks that the military is entering a period where it can undertake a broader review of its leadership policies.

????"It isn't just looking at success stories," he cautions. "We have a hesitancy to chronicle experiences where military leadership doesn't work," says Reed. "It's part of our romance with leadership."

????Soldier-CEOs tend to make more conservative investment decisions and are less likely to sanction corporate fraud, according to a report prepared under the auspices of the National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent Cambridge, Mass.-based organization.