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...