Changing the Organizational Culture

[SWJED]

Changing the Organizational Culture by Frontier 6 at SWJ Blog.

The technology of the Twenty-first Century – the “new media” – has made it possible for virtually anyone to have immediate access to an audience of millions around the world and to be somewhat anonymous. This technology has enabled and empowered the rise of a new enemy. This enemy is not constrained by the borders of a nation or the International Laws of War. The new media allows them to decentralize their command and control and disperse their elements around the globe. They stay loosely connected by an ideology, send cryptic messages across websites and via e-mail and recruit new members using the same new media technologies.

Responding to this challenge requires changes in our approach to warfare. The one thing we can change now does not require resources – just a change in attitudes and the organizational culture in our Army. Recent experiences in Iraq illustrate how important it is to address cultural change and also how very difficult it is to change culture: After MNF-I broke through the bureaucratic red-tape and was able to start posting on YouTube, MNF-I videos from Iraq were among the top ten videos viewed on YouTube for weeks after their posting. These videos included gun tape videos showing the awesome power the US military can bring to bear. Using YouTube – part of the new media – proved to be an extremely effective tool in countering an adaptive enemy. Here are some areas that our Army will need to address if we are going to change our culture with respect to this critical area...

Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.

[Tom Odom]

Changing the Organizational Culture by Frontier 6 at SWJ Blog.



Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.

Hmmm next time I take flak on SWJ from certain quarters, this will certainly come in handy.

My comment:

Great message for all in the Long War. We have been pushing the idea that the media is much like terrain; it is part of the battlefield and you have to adapt to it. No one I know likes humping a ruck through mountains. But most of us don't waste our time disliking the mountains. Instead we change loads or find another way to go. The same line of reasoning applies to the media. We need to quit wasting time complaining about what will not change and adapt ourselves to better use what is very much part of the battlefield. That adaptation can work to your advantage; not adapting will definitely work against you.

[bismark17]

I have to agree with all of that. These ideas should also be implemented at our Police Academies. It would make a difference fairly quickly.

[marct]

Hmmm next time I take flak on SWJ from certain quarters, this will certainly come in handy.

For some reason, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu. I'm tempted to send him a copy of that draft paper, Tom....

Marc

[SWJED]

Let Soldiers Blog, Post YouTube Videos, General Says - Greg Grant, Government Executive

To compete in the global information war played out on Web sites and e-mail, soldiers in Iraq should upload videos of their experiences in the combat zone to YouTube and post their personal stories online, a top Army general said recently...

[Cavguy]

I truly applaud where LTG Caldwell is going with this. Unfortunately he presents me a quandry - following his guidance as written above violates the DoD written directive linked in the article above.

An example:

PERSONAL BLOGS (I.E., THOSE NOT HAVING DOD SPONSORSHIP AND PURPOSE) MAY NOT BE CREATED/MAINTAINED DURING NORMAL DUTY HOURS AND MAY NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION ON MILITARY ACTIVITIES THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SUCH INFORMATION INCLUDES COMMENTS ON DAILY MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS, UNIT MORALE, RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, STATUS OF EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO ADVERSARIES.

I sent mass updates to friends and family in OIF 1, sharing the good and bad. In OIF 05-07, I didn't, because of the crackdown in the Army which pretty much put the fear of God in most people about saying something that violated someone's definition of OPSEC.

Interestingly, the best coverage of the war was when we were the most open in 2003, and the embeds had full access. When we began to "manage" the information after the fall, and restricted soldiers voices, support declined. While causation can be argued, restricting "harmful" soldier speech also restricted "good news" from coming out due to fear of ruining a career. The Army even set up a unit to patrol soldiers' posting on the internet for violations. Talk about cultures of fear.

He's right, one reprisal from higher from saying the wrong thing will cease any initative in the future.

It starts with DoD changing it's guidance, so I can't be charged under UCMJ for disobeying an order and doing what the general suggests.

[marct]

Agree on that CG, but notice that the directive states "during normal duty hours". If I was playing guardhouse lawyer, I would argue that let's me do it outside of that time period.

[Cavguy]

Agree on that CG, but notice that the directive states "during normal duty hours". If I was playing guardhouse lawyer, I would argue that let's me do it outside of that time period.

That part only applies to the updating, but the content rules apply full time.

But yeah, there are loopholes for the s*ithouse lawyers. I wouldn't rely on them, the UCMJ is not weighed for the accused.

[marct]

That part only applies to the updating, but the content rules apply full time.

But yeah, there are loopholes for the s*ithouse lawyers. I wouldn't rely on them, the UCMJ is not weighed for the accused.

Yeah <sigh>. Well, it would be interesting to see exactly how many actual directives would have to be changed in order to get a more open situation. It also strikes me that many of the words are highly subjective as "might lead to", etc.

[Cavguy]

Yeah <sigh>. Well, it would be interesting to see exactly how many actual directives would have to be changed in order to get a more open situation. It also strikes me that many of the words are highly subjective as "might lead to", etc.

I believe there's an Army regulation on the subject published after the DoD guidance, but I'm too lazy to find it right now.

[Ron Humphrey]

I truly applaud where LTG Caldwell is going with this. Unfortunately he presents me a quandry - following his guidance as written above violates the DoD written directive linked in the article above.

Ken just needs to call up some of his old time buddies and SWJ gets recognized as having Purpose for DOD. Problem solved

[Ken White]

I think the curtailment of blogging was really dumb -- and while I agree with 'don't do it on duty,' my bet is the OPSEC rationale is cover for 'don't put anything in there that may embarrass DoD or the services.'

(Yes, I understand there are real OPSEC concerns -- I also understand they are vastly overstated)

Which, to my mind is a shame because neither DoD or the armed forces will change much unless they're embarrassed into doing so...

I shall continue to do my part.

[Rob Thornton]

I think a big part of leadership has always been lead by example. In this case having a GO post a blog is in itself something military members can point to. It also gets to engagement - we've known for awhile that blogs were helping leadership get some ground floor assessment on a number of issues, but I think many of them were a bit hesitant to engage openly because they did not want to create an artificial filter by doing so. However by doing so, they can show what is on their mind and get some great feedback from places they might not otherwise have access to - by adding their name - it provides the context around which the content might be framed.

We've proven here on SWJ that we can engage in a reasonably articulate manner, and respect each other in doing so to further some important discussions - even where we agree to disagree, I'd remarked on one of the private forums I was glad to see a couple of others (well known leaders) openly post recently, their comments and thoughts add a great deal to the discourse.

I hope we see more senior leaders engage openly on both this forum and others - be it an interactive one, or a one time post that others can weigh in on. Both permit broader public input and feedback then say a T.V. interview or remarks captured from a speech. There is a sense of conversation in a blog or a threaded discussion - a sense of engagement. The discourse creates additional thoughts that would not come to light otherwise - which is kind of the point I think we need to capture in regards to the media. Without our participation, we become background to a reporter's interpretation - and subject to a third person narrative. I think we stand a much better chance of presenting things correctly if we're either telling our story from the first person - me to you, or inter-acting in a two way (or group) discussion.

So - who else would we like to see on SWJ? Well - anyone with an interest or stake in small wars.

Best, Rob

[Old Eagle]

First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

[Ron Humphrey]

First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

I remember someone getting apoplexic when I mentioned wanting to watch streaming training videos from AKO

[jonSlack]

First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.

...

Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.

Federal Computer Week - DOD considers prohibiting personal use of networks

[Rob Thornton]

The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.
..
Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.

I can't help but have that image of the insular cocoon show up in my head -

Are we so worried about our networks being compromised that we are willing to give up significant capability to inter-act with the rest of the world in the environment we're going to operate in? Are we going to limit our research and collection to officially approved sources? Are we going to quietly talk amongst ourselves behind the curtain - where no one can hear us disagree or tell us that anything we don't want to hear? How about the opportunity to draw on a broader segment of knowledge then available inside a room (however large we claim the room to be)? Are we going to create an insular culture that is afraid of engagement?

I know the pressure to protect our information (particularly our soldier's personal information) must be immense, but the idea of shutting the door and barring it is one I hope gets cut off at the ankles. The sad thing about it is you could show up for work one day, and bam! - you get the "cannot connect" or "unauthorized" diagnosis, with nothing else. My advice - there are some risks worth taking - this in no time (if there ever was one) to wrap ourselves in layers to avoid a risk, particularly when we have so much to gain, and so much to lose by doing so - ignoring the world will not change it, or make it go away.

We have good policies, and we have mature folks capable of making good decisions. We don't need a cyber Maginot Line.

Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Quote:
The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.

..
Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.
I can't help but have that image of the insular cocoon show up in my head -

Are we so worried about our networks being compromised that we are willing to give up significant capability to inter-act with the rest of the world in the environment we're going to operate in? Are we going to limit our research and collection to officially approved sources? Are we going to quietly talk amongst ourselves behind the curtain - where no one can hear us disagree or tell us that anything we don't want to hear? How about the opportunity to draw on a broader segment of knowledge then available inside a room (however large we claim the room to be)? Are we going to create an insular culture that is afraid of engagement?

I know the pressure to protect our information (particularly our soldier's personal information) must be immense, but the idea of shutting the door and barring it is one I hope gets cut off at the ankles. The sad thing about it is you could show up for work one day, and bam! - you get the "cannot connect" or "unauthorized" diagnosis, with nothing else. My advice - there are some risks worth taking - this in no time (if there ever was one) to wrap ourselves in layers to avoid a risk, particularly when we have so much to gain, and so much to lose by doing so - ignoring the world will not change it, or make it go away.

We have good policies, and we have mature folks capable of making good decisions. We don't need a cyber Maginot Line.

Best, Rob

I wanted to add that this is one of those things where consequences of pursuing what appears to be the "low hanging" solution of insulating ourselves has a host of adverse consequences. One of the real indicators of the quality of our military that has emerged has been the superior discourse that has emerged on the questions and issues we face - by those who face them, and those who want to understand them. What's more is it has been able to involve non-military types - this creates involvment by the broader public and brings to light the issues surrounding the military and the use military force to achieve political objectives- its healthy for our democratic republic. I'd also add that is very healthy for our military (the republic's sword and shield) - we now have discussions which foster culture change and make us stronger and more capable of meeting our enemies. Who'd have thought we'd create conditions where the lowest soldier can interact with the most senior leaders in a tactful way, while at the same time including a broad segment of the civilian population. We've created real strength here - in ways I don't think we fully appreciate. To take that away in my opinion is the equivalent of a self inflicted gun shot wound.

Best, Rob

[Old Eagle]

The Info Assurance team here has concluded that in order to prevent inadvertent compromise of information, we should disconnect all our computers from the web (NIPR) and work as stand-alones. Then, in the unlikely event we needed to communicate with anyone outside the office, cleared couriers would be the appropriate transmission medium LOL.

[Team Infidel]

I don't thing blogging is a bad thing. I think that it is the commands responsibility to educate members of the military on what and what not to post.

There was a lot of news around the recent MAJ that died in Iraq who was noted for posting his blogs.

We can't stop blogging from happening, but we can educate.