View Single Post
Old 08-20-2009   #2
Westhawk
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 12
Default How did the Army get so complicated?

How big a piece of paper would it take to write down the Army's organization chart? I mean an org chart that would show all of the Army's schools, offices, directors, groups, etc., etc. The Army's structure is very complicated - no one can argue against that.

That seems bad. But maybe it is good. How could that be?

The conference just discussed rifle marksmanship training. The discussion noted that the Army had a variety of techniques and methods of teaching basic rifle marksmanship, with each training center doing things its own way. In addition, the Army has created new training groups to teach new shooting techniques for tasks such as convoy duty, irregular warfare situations, and so forth. Several wondered why the Army allowed new organizations to spring up when original training groups should adapt to handle new training demands. When each new task results in a new organization, one can see why the Army got complicated.

But is this bad? One senior general made the point that allowing such "bureaucratic entrepreneurs" to flower brings in new ideas from new directions, permits ambition to result in action, and improves morale among leaders who think they have good ideas.

The result is a very cluttered organization, which drains time and effort from senior leaders. In addition, many of these new organizations will end up being bad ideas and wasteful of resources. But these may be acceptable prices to pay for the benefits that result, both in new ideas and for those leaders with good ideas.

-Robert Haddick
Westhawk is offline