Military Staff

**patmc** · 01-07-2009

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

My thesis-in-progress will have something to do with shifting the primary focus of the staff from supporting the commander to supporting the mission. Thought of it today, so still working on it.

That sounds better than the strengths and weaknesses of the staff system, which would probably be quite an exciting doctoral work (no offense intended if anyone on this site has produced such a document). They're trying to bring back a mentorship program here between LTs and CPTs, and we were just linked up with the most recent OBC class, but If I or my classmates can help out, let me know. We're pretty friendly, and only a couple branch detail guys bite. Good luck.

**Van** · 01-07-2009

AP,
This is really close to a project that was on my desk for about a year. Historically, the key point in the development of the staff was when Napoleon and Berthier hammered out the rudiments of what we call a staff. The Germans lept on it in 1806 as part of the reforms after they took a thrashing at the hands of Napoleon and Berthier and their buds. This gets really interesting when you look at some of the other developments of the period. Stochastic prediction, linear prediction, wargaming, the rise of meritocracy, the application of many of the theoretical developments of the late 1700s came together and led to basis of the staff structure and procedures that carried us through WWII and pretty much up to about 20 years ago. That's when we started the FLAILEX of figuring out how to move from hierarchical staff processes to non-linear, distributed staff processes.

What is interesting is that Aufstragstactik is more viable than ever with the rapid dissemination of mission essential information to the lowest levels, while the same enabling technologies allow seniors to micro-manage from a different time sone in a fashion that LBJ only dreamed of.

**Schmedlap** · 01-07-2009

The staph experience is one of those things that I think it is difficult to write about unless you have endured it. I think your point about staph being less prestigious now than it was in years past would be a good point to focus on. It speaks of a shift in the mindset of the officers - something that you can probably glean through research - rather than requiring you to do research into unrecorded details of a system that you have not yet suffered through, relying upon anecdotes.

But, if you want a good glipse at organizational nonsense, a quick read, partly for its entertainment value, is "The Spit-Shine Syndrome: Organizational Irrationality in the American Field Army" - see here at amazon.

Some people think that Captains are driven out of the Army by lengthy deployments and family hardship. My decision was based entirely upon the realization that my career would have been about 2/3 staph, 1/3 command time. I would second the earlier comment about the one rewarding aspect of the job being that, if you work hard enough, then you can help the guys on the line. But what is frustrating is that the system actually seems as though it was designed to create mountains of work and red tape that prevent you from helping them unless you expend hours/days/weeks on mindless tasks and procedures. 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."