A633.3.4.RB – Complexity Science
Reflect on your own organization's strategy or an
organization that is familiar to you. -How has it evolved over time?
Surprisingly enough one would think that the self-proclaimed
greatest Army in the world would evolve greatly over time. In some areas it has,
but for many unfortunately it hasn’t. It’s no surprise that technologically our
military is leaps and bounds more superior to many others, but one key area
that we are lacking is the adaptive leadership strategy to support it. One of our
greatest hurdle is that our systems aren’t able to support the amount of change
that is being forced down our throat. Plus I’d remiss not mentioning that our
budget clearly doesn’t support the high paced operational tempo to match the
current threat environment. Boot (2017), shows that “Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis explained to the House Armed Services Committee that having returned to
the military after four years of retirement, he was “shocked by what I’ve seen
with our readiness to fight.” I’m currently IN the fight, and trust me the pain
is real, and no relief is on the foreseeable horizon. So to answer the question
plainly, technologically it has greatly changed, but not much at an organizational
level. I do however have to admit that just about all the Army’s divisions have
currently shifted to Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) to better relieve stress on a
few specialized units that were deploying over and over again. Again however,
the core structure of the organization within embody the same historical
functional silo. So some macro change to help relieve stress, but at the micro
level, business as usual.
-Discuss each stage of development and how feedback
and strategy formulation have changed over time.
Historically
the military has had very clear boundaries of responsibility being land, sea,
air, and special operations. I was in the Army pre 9-11, and our military
really didn’t train much unilaterally, and sort of stay in our own lanes. Once
we were quickly poured into a joint-branch / multi-nationally fight in
Afghanistan, some serious lessons were quickly being learned. Not only do different
nations speak different languages, but we were in the military as well. This
was a hard realization at first and also very consequential, but cross-functional
training did however shed light in areas that proved to eventually be very beneficial.
Now that we are formed in the for mentioned BCT’s, and working close at hand
with a variety of partnered forces, our training doctrine and standard
operating procedures (SOP) are slowly starting to actually reflect the capacity
to which we fight. The types of feedback that drove a lot of this change
unfortunately came in the form of lives sacrificed in the name of poor
preparation. These actions drove political pressures to take a hard look from
the top down. I did recently see a lot of anticipated change my through
professional military education (PME) gate that shows just about all strategic
doctrine is written as Joint Branch. Before this recent change, everything in
the Army was Army Regulation (AR), and Navy Regulation (NR), and so on. Now the
change is a bit clearer, but the mindset and culture at the macro level is
slowly starting to catch up. Better than nothing I guess…
-Consider the next steps in your company's evolution
and describe what it will look like in 10 years and where you will be.
The military’s evolution is normally found in troop
capacity, and realized through cyclical repetition. Serbu (2017) reveals that
for “2017 alone recruiters suddenly had to find and onboard 6,000 more
enlistees than the 62,500 they’d planned for the year, the largest “in-year”
recruiting increase in the Army’s history.” It’s unfortunate that the military
isn’t really an efficient machine where productivity is really ever realized
through innovation or restructuring initiatives. Rather the sheer size of her
formation, and all the cool tools we get to play with is how it’s unfortunately
judged. The formation has made some recent changes that allow for a better
understanding for cross-functional training, but I foresee us once again
drifting apart once the global conflicts start to wrap up and we hermit back
into a training only force. Hamel (1998) quote “To Planners. Unless you get
involved in the quest for the deep secrets of strategy emergence, the best you
can hope for is honorable mention in a Dilbert cartoon.” I do understand for
many reasons why the Army continues to operate with similar structures, and
similar leadership styles. Unfortunately now after 19years of service, I
realize that a majority of these reasons don’t coincide with the necessity for
simplicity. As for me, hopefully sooner than later I’ll be long gone from this
beast!
References
Boot, M. (2017). America’s military doesn’t have enough money
to do its job. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/22/americas-military-doesnt-have-enough-money-to-do-its-job/
Hamel, G. (1998).
Opinion: Strategy innovation and the quest for value. Sloan Management Review,
39(2), 7.
Obolensky, M. N. (2014).
Complex Adaptive Leadership, 2nd Edition. [Bookshelf Online]. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781472447937/
Serbu,
J. (2017). After years of drawdowns, Army
needs 80,000 new soldiers to meet 2018 growth targets. Retrieved from https://federalnewsradio.com/on-dod/2017/10/after-years-of-drawdowns-army-needs-80000-new-soldiers-to-meet-2018-growth-targets/
No comments:
Post a Comment