Scientific confirmation is always nice...
Quote:
"From my own fieldwork, it seems to take about 3 months in a very calm setting to demyelinate one network and myelinate a replacement. That three month mark, BTW, is when the changes in neural networks start to become balanced enough that the individual is able to hold them in their sensorium..."
A Company or Battalion Commander will constantly express dissatisfaction with the micromanaging and over cautious ways of the Staff of his or her Boss. If moved to that Staff, it takes about 90 days on the button for the former Commander to become totally Staff-ized and thus, as they say, a part of the problem... :(
Such is the way of the world.
There's an implication in there some where...
A thought on your very perceptive question.
In my observation, if one says "this rationale is important enough to the future vitality of the organization to meets its role, that change must occur," one should be prepared for even those in the organization that agree to an extent with one to join together and resist the proposed changes. Only a really strong leader can make that statement and then make it stick. Even such a leader will meet resistance. Witness Shy Meyer's problems with the bureaucracy; he got only about half his agenda in place before he retired.
That -- his retirement -- is another indicator of a problem that is as deadly as bureaucratic inertia. Our political system. Massive changes in leadership every four or eight years (civilian) or two or four years (military) mitigate against long range planning; the old will / will not happen on my watch syndrome. Long range planning is quite difficult in the sense of executing major reforms.
The old tactical dictum "Use two up one back, feed the troops a hot meal and hit 'em in the flank" has utility beyond the tactical realm. It also doesn't state what smart commanders really do, or at least, it gets some things wrong if the situation allows, the better followed rule is -- "Feed the troops a hot meal, hit 'em in the flank using one up and two back..."
Which is a suggestion to lay the ground work, do not make a frontal attack -- and have a really strong reserve to exploit a penetration.
Innovation in the Civil War
I came across this description of a River Crossing by Union Forces under Grant during the Vicksburg Campaign. At his point Union Forces had recently defeated a Confederate force on Champion's Hill, and had pursued them to the Big Black River and was trying to get across toward Vicksburg. The Confederates had abandoned their defensive works on the banks of the Big Black River, but not before destroying the bridges. Grant's Army is left to get across the river as quickly as possible in order to maintain pressure on the Confederates and prevent them from consolidating forces and strengthening their works at Vicksburg.
From Grant's Memoirs - The Investment of Vicksburg - pg. 208
Quote:
"As the bridge was destroyed and the river was high, new bridges had to be built. It was but little after nine O'clock A.M. (ed. - on the 17th) when the capture took place. As soon as work could be commenced, orders were given for the construction of three bridges. One was taken charge of by Lieutenant Haines, of the Engineer Corps, one by General McPherson himself and one by General Ransom, a most gallant an intelligent volunteer officer. My recollection is that Haines built a raft bridge; McPherson a pontoon, using cotton bales in large numbers, for pontoons; and that Ransom felled trees on opposite banks of the river, cutting only one side of the tree, so that they would fall interlacing (ed. - an abatis) in the river, without the trees being entirely severed from their stumps. A bridge was then made with these trees to support the roadway. ...... By eight O'clock in the morning of the 18th all three bridges were complete and the troops were crossing"
I am constantly finding these types of examples in History where armies when well led, will find a way to make it happen. Leadership fosters Innovation and Adaptiveness - without it its likely that Grant's Army would have just halted. Today its just as relevant as then, without leaders who provide the environment for risk, adaptation and innovation will find small purchase.
Best Regards, Rob