• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Internal Change Impossible?

Shrek1985

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Do you feel that real, significant, positive change from within an organization is impossible?

I increasingly find from my observations that the only way to change an organization is by external forces.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

    First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

    Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
281
Points
910
It's a bit long, but read this HQ Bloat thread.

What Jerry Pournelle posited as a "law" might apply in DND/ the CF ~ Murphy's Law does, there's no reason why Pournelle's Law shouldn't.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,705
Points
1,060
Shrek1985 said:
Do you feel that real, significant, positive change from within an organization is impossible?

I increasingly find from my observations that the only way to change an organization is by external forces.

Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

    First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

    Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

Yes, it's possible, but not if you ignore these key steps:

The 8-Step Process for Leading Change

http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps
 

Shrek1985

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
So...bureaucratic resistance can always defeat anything that has to be processed via meetings?

Recent point brought home during some makeup training I conducted;

It's unlawful for CF pers to get together to arrange(conspire) a change in regulations; this is in reference to unions...but the way it's worded and how we view regulations, is this a roadblock to change?

I mean, is not everything a "regulation" at some level?
 

DAA

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's not impossible but more importantly, is whether or not the organization is "ready" and also "willing" to not just accept but pursue the change proposed.

So with a group comprised of people who are devoted to the goals and also dedicated to the orgnization......heck, that's the CF in a nutshell!

Sometimes, within the CF, organizational changes are necessary and sometimes they may not be.  It all depends on who is driving the change and why!
 

AirDet

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
6
Points
230
After 30+ years, change has become an old friend if you know what I mean.
 

kratz

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
34
Points
630
As a clerk,  I saw more change and had to adjust before I even knew the last change overtook old policy replacing current knowledge.

No, that was not a mistake what I typed. 
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Shrek1985 said:
Do you feel that real, significant, positive change from within an organization is impossible?

I increasingly find from my observations that the only way to change an organization is by external forces.

You may be confusing things here: I don't think it's an "either or". My take is that change from inside an organization is definitely possibly (and there are lots of good military examples: I'll mention two below...), but these changes will almost always be in response to external forces, pressures or circumstances.

Any organization, particularly a military force, is constantly subject to all sorts of external forces, pressures and changing circumstances. It's how they respond that matters. Some militaries will respond effectively, reform and restructure themselves, and do well. Others will do little or nothing to respond, and will fail.

The best example I can think of is the Roman general Gauis Marius, who, in the days of the Republic, utterly transformed the defeated Roman volunteer citizen "militia" army to a professional, long service force that went on to become the disciplined, highly trained and minutely organized Roman Army we all tend to think about. Marius changed just about everything, from weapons and equipment to tactics and organization to terms of service and recruitment. In purely military terms, it was definitely for the better.

You could also look at Admiral Beatty's reforms of the Royal Navy prior to WWI, which created the world's most powerful and capable navy in 1914. Beatty was responding to external circumstances and threats (the rise of the German Navy), but he drove the changes from within the RN.

In fact, I'd argue that internally driven organizational reform is often better than purely externally driven reform, which can be disastrous because its proponents often fail to understand the institution they think they are improving. The Unification of the Canadian military services is a clear example of how destructive, corrosive, and persistently damaging over a long term such ill-informed  externally "reforms" can be.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
419
Points
880
pbi said:
The Unification of the Canadian military services is a clear example of how destructive, corrosive, and persistently damaging over a long term such ill-informed  externally "reforms" can be.

Its funny you mention this.  Because while it seems to be widely recognized as being a "bad move"  few seem to be interested in actually righting the wrongs of it.  In fact as we have seen on here its hotly resisted.

And with almost daily rumors of more unification undoing it will be more and more interesting to see it play out.
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Shrek1985 said:
Can you give some positive examples of internally-driven change in the CF?

Excellent question. Nothing on the scale of Marius or Beatty comes to mind.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
419
Points
880
pbi said:
Excellent question. Nothing on the scale of Marius or Beatty comes to mind.

I dont think we will ever see anything on the scale of Marius or Beatty both of thos took place in a country that was fertile grounds for military expansion/change.  Something Canada has never had, IMHO. 

Perhaps the reccomendations found Mainguy report would be an example of positive examples of internally-driven change in one facet of the CF (RCN).  I would argue it had a profound positive change on the RCN. 

For your reading leisure:
http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/mainguy.pdf
 

pbi

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Halifax Tar said:
I dont think we will ever see anything on the scale of Marius or Beatty both of thos took place in a country that was fertile grounds for military expansion/change.  Something Canada has never had, IMHO. 

Perhaps the reccomendations found Mainguy report would be an example of positive examples of internally-driven change in one facet of the CF (RCN).  I would argue it had a profound positive change on the RCN. 

For your reading leisure:
http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/mainguy.pdf

Yes: that is a very good example. The RCN was (IMHO) becoming a badly dysfunctional place. The Mainguy report went far to fix that. Probably a cautionary tale about the dangers of adopting military cultures that don't really fit with how Canadians think (Yes...I'm talking to all you Anglophiles and US imitators out there...). Possibly the Rowley Report of 1969 , on officer professional education and development, was another one.
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
885
Points
1,060
The Rowley Report is an excellent read if one can ever get their hands on it.  I have copies I made of a version I found at the Staff College Library.  Rowley also did a significant stufy of the Army Staff College 2 year program while he was the Commandant that makes for a good read due to its insightful analysis.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,705
Points
1,060
Dixon's pretty much pegged the challenge of change for any military organization: the Psychology of Military Incompetence


The Nature of Incompetence

Dr Dixon raises many instances and examples from British military history, from both great wars and small actions. Through all these wars, he picks out some common characteristics of military incompetence, for example:

• A fundamental conservatism and clinging to outworn tradition, as well as an inability to profit from past experience.

• A tendency to reject, suppress or ignore information which is unpalatable or conflicts with pre-conceptions.

• A tendency to under-estimate the enemy and over-estimate the capabilities of one ’ s own side.

• An undue readiness to find scapegoats and suppress news about military setbacks.

• A predilection for frontal assaults and the belief in brute force rather than the use of surprises or ruses.

• Indecisiveness and a general abdication from the role of a leader.

• A failure to exploit a situation due to the lack of aggressiveness.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/04/book-review-on-the-psychology-of-military-incompetence-by-norman-f-dixon/
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
533
Points
1,040
We've undergone some fairly fundamental organizational changes at DGEMPM over the last three years with more to come, and all those are being looked at by the DRT.  The RCN as a whole is also undergoing some fairly fundamental changes in terms of C&C and areas of accountabilities and responsibilities, in terms of who is responsible for force generation, force employment etc.  It's all been pretty bureaucratic, and there has been a lot of individual resistance, but all of that was internally driven to make sure we are able to better manage/plan to capabilities.  It will continue to evolve as more platforms are maintained by some form of ISSC as opposed to the traditional forms of in service support.  'Evolve or die' comes to mind.

So yes, change is possible.  It can be pretty slow and painful due to all the hoops you have to jump through, but it has been happening in some fairly significant ways for the Navy over the last five years.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,705
Points
1,060
This is a pretty good article:

Leading a Changing Workforce
Lessons from the U.S. Army

The end of the military draft and the transition to a force of all volunteers
posed a huge reengineering challenge for the U.S. Army. The
challenge was made even more acute by budget cuts and downsizing.
The principles the Army followed to emerge as a strong, effective
organization provide a road map for civilian organizations that are
also grappling with dramatic change.

http://www.ccl.org/leadership/pdf/publications/lia/lia2103army.pdf
 

ArmyRick

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
75
Points
530
Very interesting read on this thread so far. For new guys just joining or hoping to join the CAF, this is not for you. You need to learn the basic skills, ethos and discipline of military life.

For those of us that have been Round the block two or twenty times, this is a good one.

I am a firm believer in simplifying things as much as possible. I feel our current organisation has gotten out of hand. However as an Infantry WO, my observations and recommendations would be based more on what I have seen or experienced. I have never served in a brigade or division HQ, so it would be speculative to infor insight on change there or based on other people's experience.
 

Shrek1985

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Guys, it's not fair to make me wish I wasn't in school with all this cool shit to read on a day I have to spend 6 hours in class.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
533
Points
1,040
An interesting foil to the article daftbunny posted;

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/why-our-best-officers-are-leaving/308346/


State of the Union January/February 2011
Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving
Why are so many of the most talented officers now abandoning military life for the private sector? An exclusive survey of West Point graduates shows that it’s not just money. Increasingly, the military is creating a command structure that rewards conformism and ignores merit. As a result, it’s losing its vaunted ability to cultivate entrepreneurs in uniform.

Remember talking to someone about this years ago, and when someone in the personnel studied this, they found a lot of the top performers got out, and bottom performers washed out or quit when they hit a wall, so think this generally applies to us as well, although we seem to be getting better at identifying streamers and planning their posting progressions in a way that more or less makes some sense.  Probably easier on our scale though.

I can think of a number of really excellent senior officers, but I can also think of another group of politically orientated types that will do all kinds of things to delay making a real, actual decision.  Anyway, interesting read.
 
Top