Updated: 06/08/2003; 7:41:49 AM.
The revolution in Warfare and how this affects all organizations today

Wednesday, August 06, 2003

A theme of my posting is to examine why so many people today are so deeply unhappy about their work life. Recently I have been looking at our need to have a higher purpose and at our need to have a more collegial relationship in the hierarchy.

I have posted two great articles by Ross Mayfield below because it seems clear to me that we have another basic flaw in how we organize - except for the military who have never forgotten - we are mainly are ignorant of the inherent numbers and structures that facilitate the optimal human relationships.

I bet also a dinner that there is not a text book on HR that talks about natural networks as opposed to formal departments and which then includes the theory of magic numbers for optimal relationships. My bet is that organizational theory today is an artificial construct just like the Ptolemaic view of the Universe. What is really on the table here is another Copernican revolution for organization based, now as then, on observation of reality that we are humans rather than acceptance of a  doctrine based on the hope that we are machines. .

7:41:14 AM    comment []

Sunday, July 20, 2003

This very long film film, 223 minutes, has just been released in DVD (July 2003). Most of the formal reviews have panned the film. I have now seen it twice and I feel compelled to make a case for it being actually a great film. I don't mean to use the adjective lightly. I mean great in scale and in its humanity: it addresses mythic material in an epic form. The initial reaction to the film was poor in the mainstream press. It was too long. It contained many subplots and themes that could have been excised to increase the pace. It did not pay enough attention to the evils of slavery. That the religiosity of Jackson and the pedantry of Chamberlain were jarring.

I think that these are criticisms of those that are so entrenched in their "modern" world view, that they cannot access the most moving of all forms of human communication- the Homeric Epic.

When I was a boy I read the Odyssey and Moby Dick. At the age of 9, these appeared to me to be only adventure stories. I think that most of the reviewers of Gods and Generals used this type of lens to "see" the film. I am going to be a bit mean now, but maybe this is the only level that they were prepared to experience life? One reviewer complained about the lack of blood! One thought that the subplot with Jackson and the little girl had pedophilic undertones? Many complained that not enough had been done to show the evils of slavery - they wanted more cruelty on the screen. In particular, many felt exceptionally uncomfortable about Jackson's faith in God and his willingness to converse with God at all times. All negative reviews felt crushed by the pace and the length of the film. Maybe if they were to read the Odyssey and Moby Dick today, would they would make the same type of criticisms? I suspect that they would find the books long-winded, slow, with too many subplots. Many would find the scene where Ishmael and the Harpooner share a bed at the beginning of the book homo-erotic. They would miss the meaning completely as they did with this film.

I fear that we, as moderns, have been cut off from the epic by the pace and the superficiality of modern life. It is hard for us to go beneath the surface any more.

Maybe the DVD and a bottle of wine can help to expand the frame. I sat enthralled and mostly in tears throughout the 3 hours plus of this film. Central to my emotion, was the interplay between choice and destiny.

At the heart of the film is the clash of two civilizations. We witness, with Jackson's death at the end of the film, the first step of the death of an heroic world where character is central. Where relationships are intense between people and where God, Place and Family are worth dying for. The South relies on imagination, flexibility and skill but is overwhelmed by a machine world where economic power is central. Where human relationships are replaced by machine parts

The first part of the film shows the issue of choice and duty. Lee cannot take up the leadership of the Union Army as he owes his greater allegiance to his "country" Virginia. I fear that many modern reviewers simply miss this point. They cannot know the role that Lee, Jackson and other southern leaders have previously played in the Army of the union in Mexico. Nor do they know of their time at the Point. Many of these men were as brothers.  Armistead and Hancock are best friends. Pete  Longstreet was the best man at Grant's wedding!. Lee had been a central figure in Mexico and had the enduring trust of Winfield Scott. The men who lead both sides had joined the Army of the United State and gave their oath at a time when oaths meant something. But for the Southerners, they answered a higher calling, their "country".

We who are so mobile today, Americans move on average every 5 years, have no experience anymore of what it might be like to be part of a stable society. We know little of the power of place.

The film offers a number of these choices to us at its outset. A son rejects his father's appeal to move back to the North with him. Jackson's first father in law leaves the south to wipe the dirt from his feet on crossing the Potomac. These are powerful and poignant choices. We watch Jim Lewis, a slave, sign up to serve his country too as Jackson's cook. This is no fabrication of the director. Lewis walked behind Jackson's coffin alone holding Jackson's horse at his funeral. In an epic, there is no simple relationship. The film shows the paradox of the burden of slavery in the context of the relationships. Masters and slaves were also people who shared a place and had feelings toward each other. Jim prays to be free but is also a native Virginian and is the friend and confidant of Jackson.

We witness Chamberlain in a painful confrontation with his wife. He leaves her like a Greek warrior for Troy. She can hardly bear to see him go. What wife could? We see in Chamberlain's going to war with his brother Tom another aspect of the particular acting for the general in epic.

This was the time when units of the army, especially in the south, were formed regionally. 6,000 men served in the Stonewall Brigade, all from the Shenandoah Valley. All were brothers and sons, cousins and Uncles, friends and neighbours. Can we come close to imagining what this was like in our anonymous age? So Tom and his brother, whom he constantly fails to call Colonel, are the mythic brothers for all the brothers. Only 200 of the 6,0000 who served in the Brigade survived the war. The region lost all its men. Since then the US Army deliberately does not have locals serve in the same unit.

In true epic, a single person embodies the larger theme. So Jackson embodies the South. He is a two-sided man. Much of the film explores his tenderness and also his fierceness.

A reviewer pours scorn on the scenes in the film where Jackson develops an intense relationship with a 6 year old girl. Maybe he, the reviewer, needed more context. Jackson had been orphaned at 7. His greatest fear was the loss of loved ones. The girl's greatest fear was that her Daddy would not come home. There is a remarkable Christmas scene, where Jackson asks her what she wants and she tells him that she wants her Daddy to come home. He embraces her and says "All the daddies will come home" - Of course Jackson means that they will all come home to God. Everyone that Jackson had loved has died. His parents, his first wife and his first child. What he fears the most is that his current wife will also die with their child. When this little girl dies of scarlet fever, he breaks down and weeps in front of his staff. One asks how can he weep for this girl when he has not wept for any of his men and even for his friends. Dr McGuire answers that he is weeping now for them all.

We also see his fierce side. He advocates taking no prisoners. He, like Grant, knows that war is not a game. That it should only be pursued with great force so that it can end as soon as possible. Jackson is a man whose life is an adventure. His enduring faith in God enable him to accept his destiny. He fears not his own death knowing that it is inevitable. So he is quite fearless and hence inspiring in battle. This sense of destiny and the immanence of God pervades the film and offers us all a other way of being in the world.

The film, like the Iliad, is an intermix of intense human vignettes with grand battle scenes. A reviewer noted that Ron Maxwell should look at Private Ryan for lessons in how to make a battle scene. Really? This is a different time. Here the issue is to show how men summoned the courage to march into a hail of bullets - to stand yards away from your enemy and to return fire and reload when completely exposed. I found the battle scenes enthralling. 7,000 re-enactors who really know what they are doing knock the spots off any CGI effect. Witnessing the Irish Brigade charge up the hill in a  foreshadowing of Gettysburg was a great moment of film. The men accelerating through the fire, crouched as they ran as if they were trying to shelter from rain. Men standing shoulder to shoulder 30 yards from the wall and their enemy. What we see is pure courage.

Ironically we then we see Armistead and Pickett, who were to do the same only 4 months later, comment on the bravery and the folly of such an act. We know that Armistead will die on a wall just like this and that Pickett will have his division and his life destroyed on a wall just like this.. The cheer of anguish and salute of the Irish brigade of the CFA at the wall after they had slaughtered their brothers of the Irish Brigade of the Union was a Homeric moment. This cheer too foreshadows another moment in the future. In the years after the war, a great tradition emerged at Gettysburg. At the reunions, long lines of grey-coated old man would walk stiffly up the hill to Cemetery Ridge where at the wall a long line of old men in blue awaited them. When they reached the wall, their union brothers would reach across and pull them over the wall into their embrace.

The flanking attack at the end of the film just before Jackson's shooting, is also a great moment. For me it is the blend of action with thousands of extras and the score. In silence, the men stand still at the edge of the Wilderness. Then they walk and then run still in silence as the score picks up the pace. It is balletic!

The film takes maybe 20 minutes to show us Jacksons' death. Too long? What we witness is the death not only of one man but the death of the South. From this moment it is downhill all the way. In his single death we see the death of all the 600,000 who died who left their wives and children, their fathers and mothers, their brothers and sisters all behind. In his death, we also see the end of any chance that leadership in itself could make the difference. Now it will be only a game of mathematics where the numbers and the economic might of the North will grind the South down.

My advice for Ron Maxwell and Ted Turner? The complaint heard regarding both films was that they were too long. Yet we see 13 hours of Band of Brother as being OK. Maybe HBO is the venue of the Last Full Measure? LFM demands an even grander canvass. I cannot see how a 3 hour film can do justice to the scale of the last year 2 years of the war where the scale expands and the drama deepens so much Maybe these films are in fact too short? The modern audience cannot easily take a 3 hour film in a cinema but can take a 13 hour series at home if well made. HBO have shown that they are the masters of this format.

Ron and Ted - please do not give up. I know that you want to make a difference. Having the 3 films made would be an act of great historic import.  The birth story of the US is the Civil War. This is the furnace from which has come our modern age. LFM above all shows how Lincoln and Grant understood this and how our own time was created.  We have to see how these titanic forces were mobilized and applied to understand who we are today.

We have to go to the Mississippi. We have to follow Sherman to Atlanta. We have to go into the Wilderness again and we have to end up at the entrenchment, at the first mine and we have to find our way to the small courthouse where we have to witness the meeting of Lee in his best uniform and Grant in his dusty clothes. We have to see that all of Lee's brilliance was of no avail once a new leader emerged that understood what the real job was - to wear Lee's army down to nothing. We have to see how Lee was bled not just of numbers but of talented subordinates and friends. We have to endure all of this with him to see why at the end he can make the choice not to throw away the last remnant of his army. We have to see that he did give indeed the last full measure. We have to see how, in spite of all of what has happened, all the horror and slaughter, that honour still remains. We have to see the supreme moment of coincidence, when Chamberlain leads the guard of Unions troops in salute their defeated brothers as they march off into history.

9:53:04 AM    comment []

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

TECHNOLOGY AND ORGANIZATIONAL UNIFICATION: This blog is really transformational for me.  Just when I think I have heard all perspectives, I'm awakened to new viewpoints.  Case in point...  I was with a very respectable customer today.  It was clear that these folks get the value of  human interaction given the market they are in (PURE knowledge creation and subsequent value generation), but architecture somehow gets in the way. 

Halfway through our discussion, a very bright fellow in the crowd offers that "decentralized software disrupts the value that we, as a corporation, bring to the table.  These highly valued employees will just leave us, as teams, if we allow edge-based agility.  We give them POWER."  Sigh...  Shrug...  Fascinating...

As we slog through the adoption of emergent technologies, it is clear to me that technology isn't the issue.  In fact, it is a complete NON-ISSUE.  I'm reminded by my anthropology buddies that technology is a mere tool.  Until the tribe adapts it's social viewpoint (read: culture, values, memes, networks),  technology is nothing but an enabler versus a real change agent.

[Michael Helfrich's Radio Weblog]

Michael is spot on. If you want to see how powerful his insight is there is a gem of a book called "The Dynamics of military revolution" edited by Knox and Murray. They look at many epoch changing technical innovations in the military such as the introduction of longbows, muskets, rifles etc and show that it takes about a generation, or a bad war, to make the social adjustment. IE consider the rifle. At the beginning of the civil war, tactics demanded that men line up facing each other and pour it on. By the end of the war, everyone who could get into trench did so. BUT the Europeans missed the whole point and spent much of the first 6 months on WWI charging into machine gun and rifle fire. In WWII, the French and the Brits had in total more tanks than the Germans but they deployed them as infantry support weapons. The german, by losing the last war, had created an entirely new method - Blitzkrieg. The key is to make the cultural shift and then the doctrine shift. You deploy the new in a new way. if you deploy the new in the old way - 'we keep all the knowldge inside', you fail.

7:23:36 AM    comment []

Thursday, May 22, 2003

The link takes you to the course outline that I am teaching online for the next 6 weeks. I plan to post some of my responses to my students questions and some of their ideas as a periodic series..

The course looks deeply into why our machine model for organization has become the problem today and how the application of natural models is overwhelming the machine.

10:17:01 AM    comment []

Friday, May 16, 2003

David Reed writes that security doesn't create trust - that building security into a system is more likely to foster mistrust:

"I think there may indeed be technological mechanisms that promote trust*. But don't try to tell me that security technology creates trust. It can't. At best it's neutral, and upon reflection, most times it increases mistrust and fear."

His footnote about technological mechanisms that promote trust says:

"Humans gain trust by interacting and 'getting to know' people. Transparent technologies that make it easy to see what people and companies are up to (in a sense the opposite of firewalls) are what help me trust. I like Reagan's saying: 'trust, but verify'. It implies that trust requires means for openness, not firewalls and secretiveness."

This is related to the comparison between hard security and soft security that I wrote about recently. Soft security is supportive of trust - it says that I trust you to behave responsibly and in good faith (although I will hold you accountable if you don't). Hard security, insofar as it is about trust at all, is often an admission that there is no trust and that we must impose constraints and controls (technical, legal or social) in order to interact.

[Making Connections]

All that I ahve heard about the brits and the US military in places like Bosnia and now Iraq fit this idea. The Brits interact with the locals - the US stays in the bubble. Who is more secure?

5:30:47 PM    comment []

Monday, April 21, 2003

Many business leaders are beginning to think about the lessons of the Iraq war. Some questions might be:

  • How did the US Forces manage such coordination between the Army, the Navy (Marines) and the Airforce when we can't get any of our silos to talk to each other?
  • How did they move so fast - when a "pause" was just a few hours - why can't we move that fast?
  • How did they get the initiative and hold it? Why do we merely defend?
  • How do they plan when so much is so uncertain? They surely have a bigger logistics and movement problem than we do but they were able to keep their flexibility when we can't.
  • How have they been so successful in integrating new technology so well? Why can't we use ours - What do they know that we don't about collaboration?
  • How come they have the leaders that I want but can't seem to find?
  • How come Non Coms and enlisted men perform so well when my workers are so unmotivated?

Here is a collection of powerful papers (some quite long which are best printed) that tell the story. The story begins in defeat and failure when a group of captains, Majors and Colonels came back from Vietnam determined not to put their Army and the nation through such an experience again. Our 20th century organizational model came from the success of the military in two world wars. Once again it will be worth looking at the intellectual underpinnings of the US Army and Marine Corps to see the network structures for the 21st century that have replaced the traditional Command and control system of the 20th.

This is a browse, save and print collection for the real student

3:13:43 PM    comment []

THE PHYSICS OF INFORMATION: This phrase has been rattling around my sub-conscious for a couple of weeks now. Ray Ozzie and I spoke at a government event a couple of weeks ago where I met JC Herz. JC was talking about the power of weblogs in organizations. She spoke of the power of weblogs to deliver organization-wide edge awareness, and more importantly, provide weak signal amplification of thoughts and ideas that would be lost without the medium. At several points in the presentation, she referenced the notion of the "physics of information" which caught my attention.

JC is on to something here. The Physics of Information could be defined similarly to how we look at the physics of nature: Information is made up of matter, and when consumed by people, creates energy. The "matter" of information is data, and when information contains multiple data points, it delivers meaning. It's also clear that information yields energy. Larry Prusak convinced me several years ago that information is cool, but it's the energy that's created when it is consumed and shared by people that transforms organizational thinking and decision process. It's the collision of people and information that creates the energy which drives decision superiority and/or innovation, and it is borne from highly stochastic, collaborative interactions. But the real operational challenge is understanding the affect of information matter, and understanding what causes the resultant energy.

While process improvement is quite interesting, understanding the physics of the information can make enterprise processes scream, thereby ensuring the maximum extraction of value because it can be directed at specific workgroups. Raw meta identification based solely on information matter is only half the job. Tagging the information with constituencies that will turn the information into energy is the missing link in many organizations.

[Michael Helfrich's Radio Weblog]

I suspect that we need more than the technology of blogging to get the most effective"collision" that Michael talks about above. The US Army and BP have worked hard to shift the culture towards cooperation and to find the structural links between the tactical and the strategic that can be bridged with the technology.

What does this mean in practice? At one of my clients, a major Family Restaurant chain in Canada, we are trying the following. At the restaurant level we plan to set up the process of using After Action Reviews (AARs) to capture the key experience-based lessons that occur at the work unit. How to deal with rowdy customers, how to take 5 minutes off the order time, what to do when short staffed etc. The Franchisee participates in the local AAR. The Franchisees will be linked with either a weblog or by Groove to each other and will be set up as a Community of Practice. Not only will the lessons from the front line be talked about here but also the strategic direction of the enterprise. Larger topics such as how best to open a new restaurant, new menu items, HR issues etc will be talked about here.

I have had a lot of help in this design from Col Ed Guthrie, who worked for General Sullivan (Hope is not a Method) Ed was a key driver behind the Army's ability to learn and cooperate across the silos. The results have been showcased in Iraq. Ed has worked with a number of firms since his retirement including BP. Ed is one of the clearest thinkers on the topic of how you change the culture and install the connecting structures.


9:08:13 AM    comment []

Friday, April 04, 2003

Is war all bad?

One of the unintended consequences of the two World Wars was the emancipation of women from the home. What this picture tells me, as does the reality that American Women are in harm's way, is that once again, War will act as a driver for further breaches to the glass ceiling. I suspect that in the back of our men and women's minds was the feeling that when push came to shove, men were still the only game in town. Rosie showed that the workplace was open to women. Iraq I think is showing that there is no limit to the norms of women's participation in all aspects of Western Society.

War does result in much suffering but it has unintended benefits. The end of slavery. The end of aristocratic government. The end of many dictatorships. The emancipation of women. I am not advocating war - I am saying that a kneejerk negative denies a reality. That in life everything that happens to us that seems bad can have positives and much of what happens that is good has negatives.

8:15:47 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Robert Paterson.
August 2003
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Jul   Sep



Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website.

Subscribe to "Military" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.