This project reviews key concepts of organizational culture and examines how our military culture may change as a result of various social and environmental influences. Military culture has always had a significant impact on operational effectiveness. But even military culture has a context and can be acted upon by other forces. Changes in our society will produce changes and strains inside the military, which could force new learning and adaptation of its culture. For the Army's culture, change may pose dangers. On one hand, the Army's culture may evolve too far, causing the force to become "civilianized" and less ready for the demands of combat. On the other hand, an Army focused on its own norms and values could lose sight of the values of the society it is sworn to defend. This study examined the military's organizational culture through the use of an organizational culture/climate survey that measured and compared the attitudes and perceptions of Army officers toward a wide range of culture-related issues. The results of the survey provided insights as to the need for change in our military culture due to internal and external influences. The study concludes by outlining implications for the Army.
This accessible handbook is the first of its kind to examine the sociological approach to the study of the military. The contents are compiled from the work of researchers at universities around the world, as well as military officers devoted to the sector of study. Beginning with a review of studies prior to contemporary research, the book provides a comprehensive survey of the topic. The scope of coverage extends to civic-military relations, including issues surrounding democratic control of the armed forces; military culture; professional training; conditions and problems of minorities in the armed forces; an examination of structural change within the military over the years including new duties and functions following the Cold War.
Sponsored by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association. Reveals how examining climate and culture together can advance understanding of the behavior of individuals within organizations, as well as overall organizational performance in such diverse areas as financial planning, marketing, and human resource development.
Organization theory hypothesizes that an organization's culture enables its members to work through the basic problems of survival in, and adaptation to, the external environment. Organizational culture also guides the organization's development and maintenance of internal processes and procedures that perpetuate adaptability and promote continued existence. Consequently, organizational culture has considerable impact on an organization's behavior at any given time, particularly on organizational effectiveness. However, little literature and even less data discuss the impact of organizational culture within military organizations and, more importantly, the impact that organizational culture may have on the development of an organization's leaders.In the present study, Dr. Pierce postulates that the ability of a professional organization to develop future leaders in a manner that perpetuates readiness to cope with future environmental and internal uncertainty depends on organizational culture. Specifically, the purpose of his study is to explore the relationship between the Army's organizational culture and professional development. He examines the degree of congruence between the Army's organizational culture and the leadership and managerial skills of its officer corps senior leaders. He uses data from a representative sample of such leaders while they were students at the Army War College, Classes of 2003 and 2004.At the macro level the results of his research strongly suggest a significant lack of congruence between the U.S. Army's organizational culture and the results of its professional development programs for its future strategic leaders. He bases his conclusion on iv empirical data that indicate that the future strategic leaders of the Army believe that they operate on a day-to-day basis in an organization whose culture is characterized by:* an overarching desire for stability and control,* formal rules and policies,* coordination and efficiency,* goal and results oriented, and* hard-driving competitiveness.However, sharply highlighting a pronounced lack of congruence between what they believe the Army's culture to be and what it should be (based on their development as future strategic leaders), the respondents also indicated that the Army's culture should be that of a profession, which emphasizes:* flexibility and discretion,* participation,* human resource development,* innovation and creativity,* risk-taking,* long-term emphasis on professional growth, and* the acquisition of new professional knowledge and skills.Clearly, the second set of cultural values and behaviors are much better aligned with the current and future demands of the Army's external strategic environment. Further, almost by definition, these 533 officers represent the future leaders of the Army. That is why their collective perceptions of the Army's professional culture and of their own managerial and leadership skills are of such significance to the Army.
Introduction -- Organizational culture -- Importance of organizational culture analysis -- An overview of professional organizations --Purpose of the present study -- Brief discussion of the concepts of organizational culture and professionalism -- Organizational culture -- Professionalism and professional development -- Methodology -- An overview of the Competing Values Framework (CVF) model -- Origins of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) -- An overview of the Management Skills Assessment Instrument (MSAI) -- Methodology of the study -- Findings and analysis -- Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) : findings and analysis -- Final analysis -- Implications -- Overview -- Implications for the army profession
Creating Military Power examines how societies, cultures, political structures, and the global environment affect countries' military organizations. Unlike most analyses of countries' military power, which focus on material and basic resources—such as the size of populations, technological and industrial base, and GNP—this volume takes a more expansive view. The study's overarching argument is that states' global environments and the particularities of their cultures, social structures, and political institutions often affect how they organize and prepare for war, and ultimately impact their effectiveness in battle. The creation of military power is only partially dependent on states' basic material and human assets. Wealth, technology, and human capital certainly matter for a country's ability to create military power, but equally important are the ways a state uses those resources, and this often depends on the political and social environment in which military activity takes place.
This book studies the impact of cultural factors on the course of military innovations. One would expect that countries accustomed to similar technologies would undergo analogous changes in their perception of and approach to warfare. However, the intellectual history of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) in Russia, the US, and Israel indicates the opposite. The US developed technology and weaponry for about a decade without reconceptualizing the existing paradigm about the nature of warfare. Soviet 'new theory of victory' represented a conceptualization which chronologically preceded technological procurement. Israel was the first to utilize the weaponry on the battlefield, but was the last to develop a conceptual framework that acknowledged its revolutionary implications. Utilizing primary sources that had previously been completely inaccessible, and borrowing methods of analysis from political science, history, anthropology, and cognitive psychology, this book suggests a cultural explanation for this puzzling transformation in warfare. The Culture of Military Innovation offers a systematic, thorough, and unique analytical approach that may well be applicable in other perplexing strategic situations. Though framed in the context of specific historical experience, the insights of this book reveal important implications related to conventional, subconventional, and nonconventional security issues. It is therefore an ideal reference work for practitioners, scholars, teachers, and students of security studies.
Always at War is the story of Strategic Air Command (SAC) during the early decades of the Cold War. More than a simple history, it describes how an organization dominated by experienced World War II airmen developed a unique culture that thrives to this day. Strategic Air Command was created because of the Air Force’s internal beliefs, but the organization evolved as it responded to the external environment created by the Cold War. In the aftermath of World War II and the creation of an independent air service, the Air Force formed SAC because of a belief in the military potential of strategic bombing centralized under one commander. As the Cold War intensified, so did SAC’s mission. In order to prepare SAC’s “warriors” to daily fight an enemy they did not see, as well as to handle the world’s most dangerous arsenal, the command, led by General Curtis LeMay, emphasized security, personal responsibility, and competition among the command. Its resources, political influence, and manning grew as did its “culture” until reaching its peak during the Cuban Missile Crisis. SAC became synonymous with the Cold War and its culture forever changed the Air Force as well as those who served.