Agility, Adaptability and Innovation: the Art of the Counter-Punch
Agility, Adaptability and Innovation: the Art of the Counter-Punch
SWC member Terry Terriff and I were had a great discussion Saturday over a pint or two on just what agility, adaptation and innovation are – it’s a subject he’s spent allot of time thinking, interviewing and writing about - its also a subject I like to consider. This is something we’ve talked around on other threads – from the “Great Generals” to “Adaptation” and others. It applies at the tactical through the operational through the strategic, gets into leadership, organizational structure, doctrinal philosophy, etc.
Terry if the beer got the better of me - and I mis-characterize something please make the correction - as for everyone else - your thoughts on this will only add to the discussion - we just need to figure out a way to create the "pub" atmosphere online:D
On pint #2 the discussion was really going Terry described “Innovation” as the steps taken to create and sustain the broader climate or atmosphere in which “Adaptation” takes place – this affords us greater mental “Agility” in identifying changes in the operational environment so that we shorten the adaptation loop, and seize the initiative on a broader scale. This reminded me of something I’d heard DR. Ed Coss who teaches the History piece out at FT Belvoir ILE course describes as the “Art of the Counter-Punch”- the ability to understand what the enemy is trying to accomplish, how he is trying to accomplish it, where he has over-extended himself and is now vulnerable but may not know it until its too late to recover – and you are able to position yourself to exploit that in some fashion that provides you advantage – Again this fits with my reading of Ole dead Carl – or you can pick your military philosopher/theorist.
So there is the Agility - Adaptation/Counter Punch and combination hook/uppercut/block/strong cross follow up which arguably we can do at the “double time” at the tactical level, “quick time” at the operational level, and maybe “half time/mark time” at the strategic level.
So what about large scale “Innovative Change” – or to continue with the boxer analogy - the kind that might let you see it or feel it coming before it happens and be there first? The kind that might let you gauge the effect of the emotion of the crowd, the space available within the ring, the history of both the enemy and yourself, the will to win the object in view by both your opponent and yourself (and those who support you), and the host of other external pressures on both you and your opponent. This is something that is often collectively called "the Art of War" because it defies the types of defining and precise calculations that accompany science. Keep in mind that as complex as this situation may seem – our boxer if translated to represent our self is somewhat schizophrenic – being composed of multiple parties with sometimes opposing interests.
So the questions are why and can we do better? Why - I think has something to do with bureaucracy and the conditions it creates at higher levels – can we do better has something to do with our willingness –often driven by external threats or common interests that allow us at least temporarily work together.
Don’t restrict this thread to just the subject as it presents itself – this is one of those that might have to be worked around – using an “Indirect Approach” to get to some thoughts on it. I hope Terry will pick this one up – he has a great deal of interesting things to say on this and continues to devote allot of gray matter to it – I just thought it was such an interesting and valuable discussion that I wanted to broaden it to the rest of the SWC that did not have the opportunity to discuss it over beer – which is where most good conversation happens.
Cited works – the new book which Terry co-edited – which he gave me a free copy yesterday – “Global Insurgency and the Future of Armed Conflict –Debating fourth generation warfare” – available pretty soon I suspect from Routledge books and I suspect darn well worth the read. I’ll also cite the beer and the Sport’s Bar where the pints were consumed and the discussion took place – they all seemed to go together well.
Best, Rob
Barkeep, another round...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TT
I believe my 2nd beer did indeed say something along the lines you say. Let’s see what my coffee says. :D
Do not trust Coffee...:)
Quote:
Where my beer probably mis-explained was in the context of what Rob and I were talking about – institutionalizing IW or Complex IW (or hybrid warfare, if you will – a mix of conventional and unconventional [ie, Hezbollah, summer 2006]) as a core competency of the US military (or specific services, if you prefer). A key element of developing a CIW competency, for the US military (and I concur with this) is agility and adaptability. So, in the context of this, Rob’s observation ‘“Innovation” as the steps taken to create and sustain the broader climate or atmosphere in which “Adaptation” takes place’ is correct, as ‘part’ of institutionalizing CIW. The effort to implement and institutionalize CIW will, in part, involve creating and sustaining a broader climate or atmosphere (or to be academic, organizational culture) through persuasion (narratives), education and training (behavior), in which mental agility can be fostered, and to the degree that it is fostered this will improve adaptability. Fostering improved mental agility and/or agility in and of itself would not constitute major change or innovation, even though it would be organizationally very useful, rather in the context of Rob’s and my conversation it is an important component of implementing CIW which would be a major change or innovation.
A few thoughts.
I'm unsure of the comment that innovation fosters the climate that produces adaption and agility. What I do know is that innovation can encompass or lead to both abilities and can also stand on its own. I also know that none of those things is a tenet of US Army doctrine in the fully stated sense and that, sometimes purposefully and sometimes inadvertantly, the Army stifles all three characteristics all too often. My observation generally has been that the stifling is precipitated by commanders, staff officers and senior NCOs who either lack self confidence or are personally averse to those traits as being risky.
Fortunately, there are plenty of senior people around who do have self confidence and are not risk averse -- the so-called Thunder runs in Baghdad in 2003 come to mind as an examples of three echelons worth of risk acceptance (without involving a fourth echelon ;) ) -- so all is not lost.
The desirability of adaption and agility in IW or CIW are mentioned. They are desirable traits -- I'd say necessary -- in all levels of warfare and while we may well have to soon engage in another IW effort; we may just as well not need to do so. We should be careful not to plan for the next war based on the last (we have evidence that this is not wise), we must be full spectrum.
Quote:
Of course, fostering agility is not easy (agility takes experience, education, training, and so on and so forth), and nor should we expect that every enlisted, NCO and/or officer will be agile, for human nature is such that some people tend to be more mentally agile than others. It seems to me that to develop agility you need to start right in enlisted and officer ‘boot camp’, whereas my limited, ‘book based’, understanding of ‘boot camp’ is that part of the training /socialization process is to inculcate ‘obedience to command’ (among a host of other attributes), which I suspect works to rigidify thinking (but I am guessing on this observation). How one balances a desire for mental agility with the necessity of ‘obedience to command’ is beyond my competence and I leave this to the psychologists and sociologists (and anthropologists? and ?) to mull over.
Very well said. I suggest that some are indeed more mentally agile than others -- and that agility is subject or object related. Wayne Gretzky famously said "Most players skate to where the puck is, I skate to where the puck is going to be." I can think of several people I know who wouldn't know a puck if they tripped over it much less 'where it was going to be' but they could recognize a tactical (and in one case, an operational or strategic) opening very rapidly.
What's required is realizing that our one size fits all, every person of like rank and specialty can do every job adequately is totally true.
The question is, without the large forces that provided multiple backstops that archaic system was designed to serve and with todays small professional armed force when lives, resources and national will are at stake -- is 'adequate' acceptable?
I think not. We need to foster adaptation, agility and innovation and we need to select intuitive commanders and leaders at ALL levels. Unfortunately, we have a large bureaucracy to whom those things are potential harbingers of embarrassment
Quote:
And just as fostering agility in individuals is not easy, fostering agility in an organization such as the military with its fairly rigid hierarchical structure and operating procedure (and not just on the ‘battlefield’) will not be easy. Bureaucracy (as davidfpo ably notes) as well as org culture (or self identity) are serious obstacles to innovation.
Too true. The Institution will curl up to fend off any such effort and will trot out numerous politically and even realistically correct reasons to avoid change. After watching the monster for many years, I'm convinced that attempts to change from the top down will fail.
A flanking action is probably required. ;)
Quote:
And just thinking about fosering agility at the civil/political level makes my head start to hurt……
Cheers, TT
Shudderrrr... That. Is scary.
No, the coffee didn't let you down - nor has the wine.
It's just that as a wise old Gunny once told me; "Pour coffee down a drinker and you'll either ruin a good buzz or have a wide awake drunk, both things to be avoided." :)
Agree with your comment on all counts.
The adoption of maneuver warfare, at least in the US Army has been somewhat inconsistent. There have been sporadic attempts by many smart guys to encourage mental agility and adaptiveness. Some of it, IMO, has taken but it frequently gets beaten down by the system which does not encourage it (if often inadvertently). It's not that most senior folks would not like to see it; just that some and the system are afraid of it. So your point is quite accurate.
One contributing factor to this is our continued attempt to be fair and equitable and to produce interchangeable leaders and staffers. Schmedlap addresses that HERE (note particularly his 1. and 3.) and HERE.
It is inimical to the building of trust to place marginally competent people in jobs where one knows one will have to watch them like a hawk. That is one of the reasons the system discourages innovation and agility, lack of trust essentially engendered by a flawed personnel system based on 1920s precepts. In fairness to the mid level commanders who are literally forced to do that, most would change it if they could. They cannot, thus they are forced to live with a system that is prejudicial to their success in order to be judged successful.
That's not Catch 22 -- that's Catch 44 Magnum. :mad:
Quote:
"I agree that agility and adaption are always valuable at all levels of warfare. My reading of 'Complex Irregular Warfare' - as opposed to 'irregular warfare' - is that you need to be able to do conventional and unconventional (your 'full spectrum', I suspect) pretty much simulataneously as well as sequentially (and I have to cringe using the term 'sequentially', as war and warfare is non-linear). As I am not (yet) into the wine, I expect I have not explained this well...."
No, quite clear. Not only simultaneously and sequentially but in rotation and in varying theaters with little reset time, even a direct move from one type in one area to another type in another nation. That and the distinct possibility that one can be confronted with no IW, just pure short sharp conventional combat for months, even years, on end and then suddenly have to pull out the COIN book and vice versa. All sorts of permutations and I'm not sure we're ready for it. We can cope, we generally do but coping is less than adequate...
We are a professional Army with some really sharp people at all grades. We ought to be able to do that and a few units can. The Army must be able to do it. That takes agility.
Thanks, TT. I think the key is to try to implement
Quote:
".... Whether it is even possible to transform the current organizations into agile ones is the great question, and I have real doubts about whether it is realistically possible."
the old saw about better to have tried and failed than to not have tried. :wry:
Having some experience with trying to implement
a top down approach within the Army, my guess is that will not happen. I could be wrong, certainly have been before and I really, really hope I am.
However, a combination of "Nothing wrong, the system worked for me," plain old inertia, the massive bureaucracy and Congress will make such an approach problematical at best. It will also, if it occurs, be spotty in its effect because various nooks and crannies will go into pet rock protective mode and the cascade of directives will miss some who will emerge stronger than ever and plunk for a return to 'normalcy.'
I agree that the potential for a bottom up approach at this time is as good as its likely to get. That would have the advantage of a "back wash" effect on those nooks and crannies. If the LTs and CPTs push hard, it could happen. The junior field grades are likely to be passive for the most part but the Colonels will probably flock to the barricades. No insult to anyone intended; all will be going with their perception of what's right and best but the system is designed to be change resistant and the Colonels are the gate keepers.
Nobody wants to go to untried models that may be detrimental rather than improvements and surprisingly large numbers fail to realize the impact of Congress on the personnel and training systems...
You two are on the right track
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stan
Hey Slap !
You're not too far off the mark here. When I retired most SNCOs already had at least a Bachelor's degree and could (academically speaking) attend the AWC. I've sent foreign officers to Army NCO basic courses because the officer advanced courses would have been too much on top of being in English. On the other hand, I've sent Estonian NCOs to Engineer and EOD courses designed for senior Captains and junior Majors. Most of these NCOs accelerate quickly and are eventually promoted to 3rd LT. (If you thought a butter bar was useless, well).
OCS attendance is already very possible for Army NCOs, but not without a degree. Some fair much better having had 5 to 8 years of real service time.
We do need to get involved more in 'writing' the manuals though, and the SNCO should not be left out of the equation. ...
The AWC shouldn't be a step too far but it probably is :D -- that doesn't mean NCOES couldn't stand a whole lot of tweaking and strengthening. We almost deliberately tend to create under performers.
OCS should be tweaked to allow non-degreed attendance. Give those graduates two or three years service as a LT then send the promising ones to get a degree. Those who don't rate a degree can go back to their prior rank or depart. Tough? Maybe -- it's a tough job...
During war time we directly commission sharp senior NCOs; we almost never do in peace time. The Brits do. They promote selected senior NCO for two or three years before their forced retirement date, they serve in one suitable job (Log types as S4s, Per wienies as Per wienies+, Line types as Co 2ic/XO) for one full tour and then retire.
Plenty of ways to make up the shortfall in Officers some see impending due to the societal changes in the world and the US. We also need to think of ways to employ all the SSGs that the reenlistment hump is going to produce against the drawdown in enlistments that is occurring and is likely to worsen. :(
Or, we could reduce the number of officers. The way we do it now, designed to provide a mobilization pool by by overstaffing Officer jobs is really sort of inefficient and, in its own way, is as tough on Officers as throwing out underperformers.
Most staffs are too big. Admittedly, everyone is busy, perhaps too busy -- but on what...
Being a Platoon leader is good training (and an Armored Cavalry Platoon Leader is the best combined arms training one can get) but NCOs can lead platoons quite effectively. The French (who have their strengths) traditionally have two of their four platoons per company led by NCOs (or used to, not sure what they're doing since they stopped conscription). The rather successful German Army in WW II had NCO PL.
Maybe what we've always done needs a look. ;)
Now that would be Agility...
.