10
10
0
"On September 21, the Atlantic Council will publish our major report, The Future of the Army: Today, Tomorrow, and the Day After Tomorrow. It includes 50 recommendations to help the U.S. Army prepare for the long-term future while still dominating a broad range of current and near-term conflicts"
1. Accept More Risk: Goodbye 'PT Belt' culture
2. Reinstitute “Power Down:” Too much micromanagement
3. Decrease Tolerance of Bureaucracy: Too much red tape to possibly get anything done.
4. Reduce Excessive Deference to Rank and Position: Stop being so closed minded
5. Reject Army Anti-Intellectualism: Stop overemphasizing OEF/OIF experience
6. Strengthen Ethics and Integrity: Unreasonable expectations create a dishonest work environment.
Do you agree with these? What would you add or take away?
1. Accept More Risk: Goodbye 'PT Belt' culture
2. Reinstitute “Power Down:” Too much micromanagement
3. Decrease Tolerance of Bureaucracy: Too much red tape to possibly get anything done.
4. Reduce Excessive Deference to Rank and Position: Stop being so closed minded
5. Reject Army Anti-Intellectualism: Stop overemphasizing OEF/OIF experience
6. Strengthen Ethics and Integrity: Unreasonable expectations create a dishonest work environment.
Do you agree with these? What would you add or take away?
Six Ways to Fix the Army’s Culture
Posted from warontherocks.com
Culture
Soldiers
Leadership
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
3
3
0
I disagree with the first part of #5.
The anti intellectualism. More about accepting ideas, technologies and techniques from industry and foreign armies.
Seems to be a movement that prior combat /deployment experience means nothing cant be further from the truth.
The anti intellectualism. More about accepting ideas, technologies and techniques from industry and foreign armies.
Seems to be a movement that prior combat /deployment experience means nothing cant be further from the truth.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Number two- power down.
So we have to identify the need to have centralized command with decentralized control. Empower our junior leaders to take the commanders guidance and execute the mission as they see fit.
All the while the commander understands that the subordinate might not go about things the same way they would and they are fine with that; allowing the subordinate the ability to remain fluid on the battlefield and do their thing as long as the task, purpose, and end state are met. You know, the orders process and all.
That sounds a lot like ADP 6-0 Mission Command.
It's funny how we see a problem. Identify what needs to happen, only to see that it's been our doctrine for quite a while now.
Insanity if I say so myself.
So we have to identify the need to have centralized command with decentralized control. Empower our junior leaders to take the commanders guidance and execute the mission as they see fit.
All the while the commander understands that the subordinate might not go about things the same way they would and they are fine with that; allowing the subordinate the ability to remain fluid on the battlefield and do their thing as long as the task, purpose, and end state are met. You know, the orders process and all.
That sounds a lot like ADP 6-0 Mission Command.
It's funny how we see a problem. Identify what needs to happen, only to see that it's been our doctrine for quite a while now.
Insanity if I say so myself.
(3)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
That speaks more to the 1st point of risk adverseness. Leaders won't let their subordinates be leaders in many cases. Too much CYA.
My best company commander said as a leader we sometimes need to make a decision with the information at hand. That is fine. Sometimes you can have the luxury of waiting but in most cases you need to make a decision. If it was a bad one then learn from it.
I wonder how many people actually read doctrine anymore. PLDC was 30 days locked down in north Ft. Stewart for me. We read a lot of FMs and ARs there.
My best company commander said as a leader we sometimes need to make a decision with the information at hand. That is fine. Sometimes you can have the luxury of waiting but in most cases you need to make a decision. If it was a bad one then learn from it.
I wonder how many people actually read doctrine anymore. PLDC was 30 days locked down in north Ft. Stewart for me. We read a lot of FMs and ARs there.
(1)
(0)
SGM Billy Herrington
CW5 (Join to see) - It speaks to both since both are intertwined now that you mention it.
To answer your question, I would suspect few if any read doctrine. If it is required they will but to just pick it up and read it for information, no. There's Facebook and Pokemon go to occupy time nowadays.
To answer your question, I would suspect few if any read doctrine. If it is required they will but to just pick it up and read it for information, no. There's Facebook and Pokemon go to occupy time nowadays.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
In a perfect world, these would be great. However, in an Army that is continuing to draw down and promotions become more competitive, I do not see #1 or #2 becoming widespread. When one mistake can make you stand out (in the wrong way) in a competitive field, too many officers will be risk adverse which then limits the power down. I think a failure to implement #1 also will prevent the other recommendations from becoming reality across the Army.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google