Why anyone would want to do this is beyond me...
unless it was an academic endeavor. I have spent the majority of my professional life as a staff officer and it is neither fun nor interesting. The only saving grace is that if it is done right (knowing that you work for the best interests of the line) it can make life easier for soldiers. Variations of that statement are bandied about to the point of it being a cliche, but that doesn't make it less true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I've only found a handful of books that specifically discuss the functions of a staff system.
Have any of these made it to your list of secondary souces?
The Enlightened Soldier: Scharnhorst and the Militarische Gesellschaft in Berlin, 1801-1805
by Charles Edward White
Understanding the Prussian-German General Staff system by Christian O. E Millotat
The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640-1945 by Gordon A. Craig
The Right Hand of Command: Use and Disuse of Personal Staffs in the American Civil War by R. Steven Jones
Reorganizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986) by Gordon Nathaniel Lederman
The Chief of Staff: The Military Career of General Walter Bedell Smith by D.K.R. Crosswell
Buff Facings and Gilt Buttons: Staff and Headquarters Operations in the Army of Northern Virginia, 1861-1865 by J. Boone Bartholomees
If you really want to do soemthing with respect to
Quote:
shifting the primary focus of the staff from supporting the commander to supporting the mission. Thought of it today, so still working on it.
Rather than an academic exercise with literature research to establish why Staffs are organized as they are -- or to explore better ways of organizing them since neither of those things is likely to provide any change, I have a suggestion.
Why not do some interviews with the MIOAC students and see if you can determine why MSG/1LT/CPT/MAJ Heebly reports to the Staff and for 89 days, rigorously and vigorously fights for the units and to downplay the power and intrusions of the Staff on said units -- and thus adverse Mission impacts.
Then, on the 90th day, MSG/1LT/CPT/MAJ Heebly becomes the quintessential Staff warrior and concerns for the unit and to an extent, the mission, are ignored.
Obviously, I'm overstating the case and equally obviously, we're talking about people so there are many variations on the theme. However, I think if you talk to some folks who've been there, they'll acknowledge that most people come to a Staff intending to do their best for the mission and units -- but that many succumb to what I call Staffitis and lose that focus. Some escape it and never do that -- but most do to one degree or another and in my observation, most who do that do so at about three months on the (or that particular) Staff...
{{Added: An interesting aspect is that rarely, some staffs do not have that problem; generally due to proper staff focus at the behest of a good commander. It has been my observation that the Staffitis phenomenon does occur most of the time on most Staffs even as various commanders and staff types, officer and enlisted, rotate through.}}
That has an adverse mission impact of some magnitude. It also may be amenable to change as most people do not necessarily want to become a part of the problem...
Read Cav Guy's comments again, he gets it...
so does Schmedlap:
Quote:
"The Herculean efforts that go into getting the simplest means of support for a subordinate unit is so stupid that when you finally achieve your goal, you're just left thinking to yourself, "that was so f-ing stupid. I should be able to get x item or y support for these guys with no effort. Instead, I had to fight against a system that is designed to impede progress. And the system will be there again, tomorrow, kicking me in the nuts all over again.""
You ask an extremely good and I think a very important question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
...Is it because of command culture, American culture in general, the structure/assumed purpose/resources of Army staff that results in a completely reverse staff experience for American officers?
I think you'll find that the issue is not an American peculiarity, with the exception of some but not all Germans, I've found staff malaise to be a universal phenomenon
Quote:
...Or something else entirely?
Someone suggested that it occurs because the 90 day point just happens to be when one is due for the first formal performance counseling session. I think that's coincidental. I retired before counseling got to be a hot item; it was in fact quite rare before the mid 70s. I first observed 'Staffitis' in the 50s -- and no one in those days even knew what the word 'counseling' meant...
My belief is that there are too many smart guys with too little to do being driven too frequently by less than competent senior people to produce 'stuff.' I also have long wondered if the size of the staffs had/has a significant bearing -- been my observation that the bigger the Staff, the deeper the malaise. The FORSCOM staff back in my day was really, really sad...
However, even at Bn level I've seen the effect and, before counseling became an issue, that 90 day figure was generally about it...
Excellent point, Eden! My perception is much the same.
My first contact with a staff was in the early 50s -- and the staffs I saw were notable for getting out and doing things-- gathering information and spreading the word.
As I later 'progressed' (after fighting and avoiding it as long as humanly possible) to a staff it just happened to be about the time that staff sizes and ranks were increased and more information became available for use -- both those things due to a variety of factors.
At the tail end of my nominal career, I was on a large staff that truly had access to more information than it could digest but in visits downstream, I noticed the same thing at all levels; the staffs had become a filter and the ability to do something truly directed at mission accomplishment was an exception to the rule of constant filtering.
Look at that as it goes upstream; trying to do something for a Bn mission impacts the Bde staff as it becomes something to filter; at Div it becomes just another item of dust...
Thus your point:
Quote:
"...This transformation continues and is not yet complete, but I believe that staffs twenty years from now will look superficially the same but will in fact function quite differently."
is I'm sure correct and one has to wonder if the staff malaise factor which is quite real and an at least mildly adverse impactor on individual retention and on unit performance will be addressed in the process of that development...
Some of those. Thoughts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
...the staff is entirely submissive to the commander.
I lack current experience but for the period 1949-1995 that was far from a universal truth; I've seen many a Staff type bulldoze or cover for a weak Commander and even more go around an overly authoritarian type.
Quote:
...I'm curious if it would be desirable for someone (the "chief") on the staff to have someone from the next higher unit (CO/XO) as his rater.
Lot of practical problems with implementing that, not least distance and separation in many cases; i.e. it will work in garrison, in peacetime and in some low intensity combat situations but not in all and will not work at all in mid or high intensity combat. The latter may be the exception rather than the rule with regard to time but the latter are the ultimate reason for existence of any staff and thus their requirements have to be the arbiter.
Quote:
...What partly I'm interested in is whether or not an adversarial staff can develop better intents, COAs, and so on based on the higher unit's tasking. I think this would also lessen the impact of a commander's personality on MDMP. Thoughts?
The intent is or should be the commanders, it is NOT up to the staff to develop that and no good Commander will allow that other than as a training measure; in the actual plan or order, it must be his.
The adversarial approach is much used in many communities, in a military setting it is seldom helpful and is vastly over rated as a method.
The commander's personality is not the only impactor on the MDMP (which is BTW entirely too slow to be used in mid or higher level conflict below Corps level and IMO should be scrapped...), staff personalities and squabbles can also affect it. So, even more so can higher hq -- and subordinate units...
Disagreement is the spice of life...
If we agreed all the time, one of us would be unnecessary -- and we both KNOW that ain't true!!!
Even if no one else knows it... :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RTK
It doesn't happen often, but I disagree with you here, at least for the OBC part. After 2 years, 19 classes and 1500 lieutenants, there is no way they could comprehend MDMP adequately to even give a familiarization. They have difficulties grasping TLPs, let alone MDMP.
Understand -- do recall I say and firmly believe that OBC should be about a year long... ;)
I also think MDMP is way overdone and needs to be greatly simplified. It came about in an effort, as 82 Redleg said
Quote:
"...that we developed to help untrained staffs support inexperienced commanders (maybe during WW2?). It seemed to make sense at the time.
Though IIRC, it was post Viet Nam and due to DOPMA insuring that we would have too many untrained staffs and inexperienced commanders. ..:mad:
You addressed these comments to RTK but I have some answers to a few...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
...(a Commander) is to inspire by some way, act, or process his men to perform their duties, and to execute the missions tasked to his unit...however, I believe that leading and planning are two separate and distinct functions...I certainly think there is room to make staffs more powerful and more effective.
A point on Command -- leading and inspiring is good but not a mandatory item; unfortunately, getting people to lay their lives on the line requires more than leadership and inspiration. It requires the force of law and command authority. That's why commanders are not called leaders.
Leading -- or commanding -- and planning are indeed two separate functions. However, the Company Commander is responsible for both and has no staff to assist. Higher commanders have staffs to assist but the responsibility for the plan is theirs, not the staff's...
I've already said but will reiterate because it's important -- staffs are too powerful now; they need less and not more power.
Quote:
... I think the Army only gives lip-service to character development and can do much more in that regard.
No, the Army cannot do much more for character development, it does not have the time -- and more importantly, that is NOT the Army's job; that was the job of parents, educators and society. If a person in the Army has character flaws, place the blame where it belongs.
Quote:
...I will dispute that adversarial decision-making necessarily undermines loyalty or teamwork. It can and it does undermine, but I do not think that it must necessarily follow from disagreement as you suggest...
Adverserial decision making undermines cooperation and / or teamwork -- as you'll later see -- far more importantly, it just takes up too much time. In an academic exercise, it can be illuminating -- in combat it is an attempt to replace a rapid good enough plan with a far too slow closer to perfection plan. Won't work -- will get people killed.
Quote:
...Part of my intent is to find out (1) whether alternative relationships exist in other staff systems and (2) if such alternatives can produce better results than what we have now.
You say better results. On what basis do you think current results are unacceptable?
Quote:
If personality types have a measurable impact on performance, then I think taking advantage of that is something worth looking into.
They have been looked into, numerous times by untold numbers of people and organizations. Check the research data; no sense in reinventing a wheel.
Quote:
...I'm very interested in the abstract principles and assumptions that goven commander-staff relationships, and what, if anything, can be modified and improved. Obviously my comments so far indicate an interest in increasing staff powers relative to a commander. That's liable to make the commander types upset. ;)
Abstract principles are all very well. It has been my observation that entirely too much effort in the Army is directed toward those at the expense of preparation for dealing with reality. If you're going to increase the power of the staff vis a vis the commander, you're going to turn over 5,000 years of military history around -- good luck with that.
You might want to eschew the abstract principles and try for practical solutions that can realistically be expected to offer a prospect of improvement...
Quote:
I think the major contributing factor to our disagreement is the fundamental contradiction in our initial assumptions: I believe your assumption is that an intuitive, direct single decision-maker will make, on average, better (or more relevant?) decisions than a collaberative, deliberate process. I am assuming the opposite. Am I accurate? If so, what do you think are the implications of those opposing assumptions?(emphasis added / kw)
Might I suggest that your statement of your assumption appears to be correct as this thread illustrates but that your stated belief that RTK's assumption is as you state may be in error as in his case it is not an assumption at all but an acceptance of demonstrated fact?
I'd also very strongly suggest that you replace the word I emphasized with 'timely.' You may or may not wish to do that; I can assure you that most people in combat will do so.
Quote:
...if a staff were semi-autonomous...
Why would anyone want a staff that was semi autonomous??? Who would they serve??? Far more germane to the issue, what purpose would they serve???
Quote:
Do you think the thoroughness of MDMP is effective? Also, if a staff were semi-autonomous, do you think it would be helpful for it to run continuous MDMP (with the necessary changes) similar to continuous IPB?
No and no.
I have often wondered how many really good officers
Quote:
Originally Posted by
patmc
If I had been forced to be S4 for 19 months as a FA/MI officer, I would likely be Mister, not Captain right now (not joking). Few jobs are fun, but some are much less fun than others. If you forced officers into multi-year jobs, they would become specialists, and if they did not like that job, retention and satisfaction would drop.
leave the Army and Marine Corps due to having been assigned as a Support Platoon Leader or the S4...
All good stuff. A lot to be said for staff before command...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
I hate to say it, S4 was a great time for me in combat as far as staff jobs went - think Don Rickles' character in "Kelly's Heroes" (well, not that bad). ;)
er... worse??? :D
Quote:
Then again, I was working for an absolutely spectacular BN CO and XO, whom I would have been happy working for in any capacity.
That does make a big difference...I've known a few who made it that, biggest problem I've seen with the jobs were bad, overenthusiatic Bn / Bde XOs.
Quote:
I was blessed with serving under good officers during most of my staff time as well, which made it much more bearable. But it isn't all bad.
True, I've always found a pony in there somewhere... :cool: