Blog Posts tagged with "adapt"

Great discourse in this post... What immediately comes to mind in regarding the ability to use consensus in kinetic operations is the Anabasis. The 10,000 used a form of consensus that also heavily relied upon hierarchy to get themselves back to Greece, so the possibility is there for consensus to be applied in kinetic operations. But, just the same, accountability must reside in one person at each strata of command. Generally, it has been that one person who has also served as the conduit (contact) between command strata. But, the efficacy of such an arrangement between strata is degrading. Instead of a few--senior--points of contact between strata, numerous junior and senior contacts are needed. Was it Alexandre Ledru-Rollin that said 'There go my people, I am their leader and must follow them!' . this post is making me wonder if it will be the staff that has to do most of the adapting or the commander... This evolution occurring within command staffs appears as a byproduct of natural communication being augmentation by technology. I believe it is a safe assumption that this natural evolution will continue until restrained by order or doctrine. To me, this says that the burden will end up on the commander to keep pace with their staff. The limits of their ability to keep pace should be in proportion to the restraints they place on their staffs in their communication. It has always taken an exceptional individual to be in command, and I believe this is an additional item raising the bar for what is considered exceptional. But, for the sake of brevity I won't comment on the responsibilities that the staff must assume in such an arrangement. V/r YN2(SW) Gauthier

Dear Admiral, I totaly agree with You. We need more debate about crucial questions, but on broader level, one of future model is Security Jamm sessions organized by SDA, that on quick way gather many experts around world from politics, military, media and non govermental organizations dealing with security and defence issues. On such way we could build the culture that could on easiest way public can adapt, but also it could help in speading transformation process of organizations prepearing to answer on New Emerging Security Challenges. Of course, creating the new kind of personel and leaders is at core of that civilization process. Aleksandar Djelosevic International Security Analyst Republic of Serbia

Don't like to spam, so will keep this short: www.jostle.me provides way for hierarchy and flat / ad hoc teams to dance together.

Sir: As a EUCOM J-3/J-5 Alumni, recent NATO Defense College graduate and the current US Army NATO G-3, I have been following your blog for sometime. With the current NATO restructuring, budget challenges, and EUCOM/USAREUR transformation(s), your comments resonate with some of us below the decks. Like you, we are looking to adapt and change our organizations to meet the challenges that we are all aware of. US Army NATO, as you may know, is the Army's Title 10 support organization to US Army Peacetime Establishment and MOU/MOA personnel assigned to NATO. We are a unique "steady state" organization that has reach into every NATO organization through our personnel, administrative, and training systems. In the hierarchy, we are a special DA activity attached to USAREUR. At the same time, I see organization as a network or flat organization that can be put to better use to achieve as you said to "lead to optimum outcomes". I believe our organization should transform and move beyond Army administrative, personnel, and training requirements. Our established network could be leveraged in areas such as Joint Support to US personnel and families assigned to NATO (which we do on an ad-hoc basis) as well as a platform for US-Allied engagement and education which could foster stronger EUCOM-NATO ties. While this forum is not the best place to further this idea, my hope is that the hierarchies are able to "connect the dots" and make your vision a reality. Respectfully, LTC Peter Tate

There are two reasons I see for a hierarchy in the military: 1) It provides necessary redundancy and readiness - when a person is unable to execute their duties, the deputy/xo can step in and maintain the same level of organizational effectiveness; and 2) cultivates leadership, increased responsibility, and more opportunities for upward mobility. The flat organization certainly promotes efficiencies, but we need to realize the costs in terms of readiness and upward mobility. I agree there's a place for both hierarchy and flat organizations in the military. I think there's more opportunities for flat organizations in the military's corporate support organizations and headquarter staffs where nobody is taking direct fire. Both should be deliberately applied with informed decision-makers.

ADM Stavridis: Great post. Intriguing. You present an interesting opportunity for discussion, but stop short of the real value-added found in flattening the military by bifurcating the organizational structure, presumably by mission. Allowing operational units to keep an antiquated hierarchical structure while suggesting headquarter elements may benefit from a flat structure stops short of realizing the real benefits your post suggests. I am not convinced that the artificial demarcation between function is necessary. I challenge one assumption you make. You state, "we cannot afford to make decisions by consensus", especially in "tactical, kinetic operations – where lives hang in the balance". This suggests there is still more to appreciate about what a flat organization may look like. You give renewed life to a common perception of many senior managers that has been used as an excuse to not explore organizational structural changes. A flat organization does not rely exclusively on consensus. There is still a decision maker who approves a team's ultimate action. A flat structure allows stakeholders an opportunity to communicate their perspective and ideas (when appropriate) across function and past silos. Certainly consensus has its place, but not any less than in any well functioning organization, be it flat or hierarchical. There are many methods of organizational decision-making and no one structure has a monopoly on a decision-making model or is restricted to one model. The true constraint on any team or organization really comes down to time and the effectiveness of communication as a function of time. Both organizational structures suffer from these constraints, and one could convincingly argue that in a hierarchical structure communication effectiveness may suffer more delays than a flat structure that takes full advantage of technology.

The above statement is a very good point that is made here. It shows that the military is also made of persons who understand how time evolves. It is very comforting to read, for a civilian, that a SACEUR works in this direction. It shows that understanding and dialog options are being put forward. I suggest a little component gets added regarding the uniform of a soldier and the person within. A soldier is a person that lives in a present and in a social context that is bound to civil life, progress and evolution. The uniform he wears symbolizes a task and duty that is part of civil life and not a different sphere of human existence. Military life is a normative enclosure for the regulation of a violence potential that otherwise would be anarchic. The only reason for humans to be in a uniform is to try to keep at least a human structure in the system of violence that follows less of a chaotic anarchic pattern and more of a human and freely chosen pattern. The logic following this thought is that human and cultural strategies replace violence as a regulating system for human complexity. It is obvious that soldiers contribute to the evolution of both, society and army. In parallel, it is very important to see and accept that the people in the streets in Europe are striving for more personal implication and responsibility, offering alternative solutions to civil complexity governance, stepping out of hierarchic thinking. The Arab Spring extends to Europe in a less violent manner. Citizens in Europe start moving, setting up demonstrations like in Stuttgart21 and even further setting up new institutional patterns like in Madrid or Barcelona with the Acampada. Arcadi Oliveres placed some very wise words on TV this morning concerning this issue: http://www.justiciaipau.org/nou/comunicats.es.shtml?x=6326

There is not much that motivates me to blog. I contribute my general distaste for blogging to be a natural byproduct from using the internet for most forms of communication at work these days. Perhaps, I am a bit of an “old soul” compared to others of my generation in my preference to connect without the connectivity. I begin with this disclaimer, of sorts, because the fact that I did find something interesting enough to stop and craft a response, to a blog no less, is a compliment to Admiral Stavridis and fitting for the topic at hand regarding generational differences as mentioned by Admiral Stavridis . Clearly, I am not of the “Generation Y.” Several years ago, I attended a professional healthcare conference, as a student observer, and it was my first exposure to the discussion of the combination of different generations in the workforce—specifically the fact that this is the first time America has four generations in the workforce at once. It was intriguing information and the presentation thought provoking, but I never had reason to give it much reflection afterwards...until now. I see the connection to the discussion of flatness versus hierarchy in organizations as it relates to the concept of becoming a “learning organization” in response to diversity of characteristics among the different generations (Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y). Though it has been the subject of research and/or discussion as early as 1994, I was only recently introduced to the debate of whether or not the military could become a learning organization. This debate ties nicely to the generation combination issue and seems a result of the noticeable variations of generations in today’s business organizations and the recognition to address the generation gaps to improve potential for success in a more complex business environment. The military needs the same dedicated attention to change.