Posted on Feb 24, 2015
Changing minds in the Army: Why is it so difficult and what to do about it?
3.09K
7
6
1
1
0
With the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army now finds itself in a time of extraordinary fiscal and national security uncertainty. In such an environment, it seems naïve, or at least overly optimistic, to assume that all, or
even most, of a strategic leader’s current assumptions will be just as relevant several years into the future. It follows then, that senior leaders may need to be willing to change their minds on important issues instead of clinging to increasingly obsolete ideas and positions. For this monograph, changing one’s mind implies a reversal of a previous judgment or position on an issue.
(Retrive from http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/files/1179-summary.pdf. 24 Feb 2015).
even most, of a strategic leader’s current assumptions will be just as relevant several years into the future. It follows then, that senior leaders may need to be willing to change their minds on important issues instead of clinging to increasingly obsolete ideas and positions. For this monograph, changing one’s mind implies a reversal of a previous judgment or position on an issue.
(Retrive from http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/files/1179-summary.pdf. 24 Feb 2015).
Posted in these groups: 
Military Industry
Army
Military Industry Army
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
SFC (Join to see)
That was an interesting paper.
While the Army prides itself on After-Action Reports, Hot-Washes, Lessons-Learned, etc. and uses those to rapidly adjust tactical and operational plans and activities, it is much slower to do so in other areas, such as social issues.
As the study points out, a person's attitude and willingness to change are affected by their frames of reference, their upbringing and experiences, their intelligence, and their exposure to personnel with different views.
The military is a pretty closed society, where its members are expected to conform to set standards, traditions, policies and rules. Any deviation from them is discouraged and, in most cases, punished.
The repetitive nature of military life "hardens the wiring of the brain", as pointed out, and, therefore, it is very tough for people to overcome decades of looking at something from one angle or point of view. This is exasperated by the military culture that discourages subordinate dissent or disagreement with senior leaders.
As society changes, so will the military, but it will take time. Today's junior NCOs and officers will be senior NCOs and officers in the future and they will carry with them a new set of values, social mores, and opinions of what is right and wrong. It will just take time.
Forcing change, as we see going on now with the politically correct, social engineering being thrust upon our military, is the wrong way to go about it, for the very reasons stated above.
That was an interesting paper.
While the Army prides itself on After-Action Reports, Hot-Washes, Lessons-Learned, etc. and uses those to rapidly adjust tactical and operational plans and activities, it is much slower to do so in other areas, such as social issues.
As the study points out, a person's attitude and willingness to change are affected by their frames of reference, their upbringing and experiences, their intelligence, and their exposure to personnel with different views.
The military is a pretty closed society, where its members are expected to conform to set standards, traditions, policies and rules. Any deviation from them is discouraged and, in most cases, punished.
The repetitive nature of military life "hardens the wiring of the brain", as pointed out, and, therefore, it is very tough for people to overcome decades of looking at something from one angle or point of view. This is exasperated by the military culture that discourages subordinate dissent or disagreement with senior leaders.
As society changes, so will the military, but it will take time. Today's junior NCOs and officers will be senior NCOs and officers in the future and they will carry with them a new set of values, social mores, and opinions of what is right and wrong. It will just take time.
Forcing change, as we see going on now with the politically correct, social engineering being thrust upon our military, is the wrong way to go about it, for the very reasons stated above.
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, I must agree with your statement. So what can leaders do to improve their chances of successfully implementing organizational change? They should use an intentional, structured approach to determine where we are now, where we want to be in the future, and how they will bridge the gap. By assess the current state to understand where the organization is starting from as it begins the change process. What are the organization's strengths? What are its barriers to change? Are Leader's ready and willing to embrace the change and adopt new behaviors?. We need to Paint a clear, compelling picture of the future state and explain why change is necessary. Soldiers are more motivated to change if leaders can give them hope and inspiration. Soldiers need to envision the change and understand how their efforts will contribute to achieving it.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SFC (Join to see)
I agree with you. The problem is that many do not want to see the changes that are being proposed (forced) on them by the liberal/PC crowd who are trying to push social engineering changes that will ultimately degrade the readiness and combat effectiveness of the military.
The new generation of officers and NCOs need to win over the "old guard" to the new way of thinking. They cannot force it on them. The Administration's "purge" of senior officers who don't share their beliefs and vision only tends to make the survivors dig in more. They may not show it, but they will not yield to what they perceive as wrong. They will dig in and do what is necessary to not make waves until the current administration is gone and/or the sentiments change due to real-world issues.
Our military has changed over time and it will continue to change with society. It has been used as a testing ground for social change, which I think is a mistake, but it has adapted. There comes a time, however, when too much is simply too much and I think we are very close to that point now with some of the things being forced on the military that the majority openly disagree with. Drastic change can only occur over time, particularly in the military. One has to be patient.
While I know change is inevitable, I can only hope that common sense prevails and realizes that change for change sake is not a good thing and that there are certain things in society that have no place in the military.
I agree with you. The problem is that many do not want to see the changes that are being proposed (forced) on them by the liberal/PC crowd who are trying to push social engineering changes that will ultimately degrade the readiness and combat effectiveness of the military.
The new generation of officers and NCOs need to win over the "old guard" to the new way of thinking. They cannot force it on them. The Administration's "purge" of senior officers who don't share their beliefs and vision only tends to make the survivors dig in more. They may not show it, but they will not yield to what they perceive as wrong. They will dig in and do what is necessary to not make waves until the current administration is gone and/or the sentiments change due to real-world issues.
Our military has changed over time and it will continue to change with society. It has been used as a testing ground for social change, which I think is a mistake, but it has adapted. There comes a time, however, when too much is simply too much and I think we are very close to that point now with some of the things being forced on the military that the majority openly disagree with. Drastic change can only occur over time, particularly in the military. One has to be patient.
While I know change is inevitable, I can only hope that common sense prevails and realizes that change for change sake is not a good thing and that there are certain things in society that have no place in the military.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Why is it so difficult to change minds in the Army?
- The Army is a conservative organization. By definition, this means that the Army is "disposed to preserve existing organizations, institutions, etc or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change".
- The Army is a bureaucracy. By definition, this means "administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine". The red tape is loosened during wartime but it comes back with a vengence in peacetime. Look at how hard it was for the SECDEF to get MRAPs to the Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only by extraordinary measures and leadership...
- Senior Army leaders are older people. Older people tend to be less agile and adaptable. Ever hear the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"? These old people were successful for certain reasons. Very hard to get them to do something new that goes against what they think was successful in the past.
- Winners stick with what they know while losers go to the drawing board. This applies to sports and war. Championship teams are hestitant to make changes even when changes are needed. Teams that don't make the championship do whatever it takes to get to the championship. Look at the Brits, French, and Germans from WWI to WWII.
- The natural friction between effectiveness and efficiency. The American taxpayer wants the best bang for their taxpayer buck (efficiency). A Soldier in a foxhole does not care about efficiency, only effectiveness. Congress seems to care about neither (just saying). This natural friction tends to slow down progress and initiative.
- The Army is a conservative organization. By definition, this means that the Army is "disposed to preserve existing organizations, institutions, etc or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change".
- The Army is a bureaucracy. By definition, this means "administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine". The red tape is loosened during wartime but it comes back with a vengence in peacetime. Look at how hard it was for the SECDEF to get MRAPs to the Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only by extraordinary measures and leadership...
- Senior Army leaders are older people. Older people tend to be less agile and adaptable. Ever hear the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"? These old people were successful for certain reasons. Very hard to get them to do something new that goes against what they think was successful in the past.
- Winners stick with what they know while losers go to the drawing board. This applies to sports and war. Championship teams are hestitant to make changes even when changes are needed. Teams that don't make the championship do whatever it takes to get to the championship. Look at the Brits, French, and Germans from WWI to WWII.
- The natural friction between effectiveness and efficiency. The American taxpayer wants the best bang for their taxpayer buck (efficiency). A Soldier in a foxhole does not care about efficiency, only effectiveness. Congress seems to care about neither (just saying). This natural friction tends to slow down progress and initiative.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
The old addage about old dogs and new tricks comes to mind. As does the one about horses and water. You can give people all the tools they need to change and grow, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not they choose to use it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google