3 ms·

Very interesting perspective into the shortcomings of our military system. The article is worth reading through, but in summary: The author suggests that our dr

Very interesting perspective into the shortcomings of our military system. The article is worth reading through, but in summary: The author suggests that our drawn-out, meandering wars are the result of a perverse incentive system among the higher ranks of the military. Leaders are not rewarded for successes or, perhaps more importantly, punished for their shortcomings and failures. Instead, they are given short, time-limited appointments in leadership roles, which changes the goal from military success to simply ensuring that nothing too bad happens on their watch. Likewise, these time-limited roles result in a diffusion of success, where everyone can claim that progress was at least partially due to some of their own actions. Perhaps the most succinct explanation from the article: But the Army continues to do too little to sort the average performers from the outstanding ones. That has long-term consequences for the caliber of military leaders. A recent survey by students at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government found that good young officers have left the military in large part because of frustration with military bureaucracy and the sense that the armed forces do not have a performance-oriented system for managing personnel. The author proposes that the military should more frequently relieve poor performers from their positions until they find the person with the right personality and intelligence for the position. I've never been involved in the military, but I feel as though this perverse incentive structure is common among many businesses as well. Most big companies I've worked with have a few obviously incompetent employees in leadership positions, but harbor an unwillingness to demote or fire them because they've "earned" their position through hard work and loyalty to the company. Taken to the extreme, this is the famous "Peter Principle," which suggests that employees will continue to be promoted until they reach a position beyond their abilities, at which point they languish in mediocrity. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle )

guylhem 14y ago
Making sure that nothing bad happens under your watch may not be such a bad thing in the military. Most of the critiques in this tread sound like this comment by Davidson about the french change of leadership in Vietnam: On arrival, Navarre was shocked by what he found. There had been no long-range plan since de Lattre's departure. Everything was conducted on a day-to-day, reactive basis. Combat operations were undertaken only in response to enemy moves or threats. There was no comprehensive plan to develop the organization and build up the equipment of the Expeditionary force. Finally, Navarre, the intellectual, the cold and professional soldier, was shocked by the "school's out" attitude of Salan and his senior commanders and staff officers. They were going home, not as victors or heroes, but then, not as clear losers either. To them the important thing was that they were getting out of Indochina with their reputations frayed, but intact. They gave little thought to, or concern for, the problems of their successors. Just look at the ambition and creativity displayed by Navarre's "hedgehog" strategy, and the (spoiler alert: dismal) result it got for France in the Vietnam war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu Not losing may in fact be one of the requirements for winning :-) In corporations, the consequences are not that bad - closing door is not a big tragedy. Ten of thousands dead on the other hand, and a war lost is a tragedy. So please don't dismiss the military just because they work differently. They are on a different problem space. They need different solutions.
- michael_fine 14y ago
  The hedgehog strategy there worked, brilliantly, but it is a strategy, a strategy designed around not losing. In the case of the American military, most of our missions now have specific aims that can't be accomplished by simply avoiding disasters.
  - subsystem 14y ago
    The early decisions in the Iraq war like de-Ba'athification, dissolution of the military and not protecting vital government sites, could be seen as thinking to much about "winning the war" and not enough about not losing it. On the other hand it was somewhat the tactic of the Iraqis, or even more so the Taliban. To not lose by disrupting society enough that their enemy can't "win".

guylhem 14y ago

Making sure that nothing bad happens under your watch may not be such a bad thing in the military. Most of the critiques in this tread sound like this comment by Davidson about the french change of leadership in Vietnam: On arrival, Navarre was shocked by what he found. There had been no long-range plan since de Lattre's departure. Everything was conducted on a day-to-day, reactive basis. Combat operations were undertaken only in response to enemy moves or threats. There was no comprehensive plan to develop the organization and build up the equipment of the Expeditionary force. Finally, Navarre, the intellectual, the cold and professional soldier, was shocked by the "school's out" attitude of Salan and his senior commanders and staff officers. They were going home, not as victors or heroes, but then, not as clear losers either. To them the important thing was that they were getting out of Indochina with their reputations frayed, but intact. They gave little thought to, or concern for, the problems of their successors. Just look at the ambition and creativity displayed by Navarre's "hedgehog" strategy, and the (spoiler alert: dismal) result it got for France in the Vietnam war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu Not losing may in fact be one of the requirements for winning :-) In corporations, the consequences are not that bad - closing door is not a big tragedy. Ten of thousands dead on the other hand, and a war lost is a tragedy. So please don't dismiss the military just because they work differently. They are on a different problem space. They need different solutions.

michael_fine 14y ago
The hedgehog strategy there worked, brilliantly, but it is a strategy, a strategy designed around not losing. In the case of the American military, most of our missions now have specific aims that can't be accomplished by simply avoiding disasters.
- subsystem 14y ago
  The early decisions in the Iraq war like de-Ba'athification, dissolution of the military and not protecting vital government sites, could be seen as thinking to much about "winning the war" and not enough about not losing it. On the other hand it was somewhat the tactic of the Iraqis, or even more so the Taliban. To not lose by disrupting society enough that their enemy can't "win".