Leadership methods that don't work

I've been thinking from time to time about the methods used in business to lead, and two things that I'm pretty sure don't work are the concept of "coach" and "general." Why so?

Very simple; the training of the soldier or athlete is in general that of classic conditioning. One trains for hours and hours, honing appropriate skills to more or less instant reactions, and then one goes into either battle or "the big game."

In contrast, modern management theory spends very little time on training subordinates, and business tends to require a thinking response, not a conditioned response. As such, when modern managers use the methods of a coach or general--generally a high pressure situation--they do not get what they desire because they have not trained to generate a conditioned response, and the high pressure tactics trigger the "fight or flight" response in subordinates--more or less shutting down the thinking process that is desperately needed in business.

What's the alternative? Well, if the government wasn't taking steps to prevent it from happening, the historical method of leadership and training for employees and craftsmen is called "apprenticeship." If one could make it work in one's own business, one would quickly find a huge advantage over businesses where leadership views itself as a Woody Hayes or Patton.

Addendum: the recent case of a Navy officer removed from command due to cruelty to her subordinates, as well as interaction with the husband of my childrens' piano teacher (Navy-retired), indicates that even the military doesn't think that the "Patton" stereotype is a useful leadership model.