Housing Scheme
The Effectiveness of Military Organiza tions
ALLAN R. MILLETT, WILLIAMSON MURRAY, and KENNETH H. WATMAN Mershon Center, The Ohio State University
The interrelated issue of rnilitary structure and effectiveness confronts planners and commanders with some of the most intractable intellectual issues associated with organizational behavior. T h e realities of preparing forces to kill and to face death in the service of the state createproblems with no ar~aloguesin other forms of social interaction. It is easier to define the behaviors one wishes to discourage in individuals - cowardice, flight, and IIOII-cooperation - than to definc the positive performance of conlplex organizations, which all armed forces inevitably become. 'The primary object o f organization,' wrote General Sir Ian Hamilton, 'is to shield people from unexpected calls upon their powers of adaptability, judgment, and decision." Yet other commanders have observed that individual and organizational flexibility is essential to military success. Despite a sizeable theoretical literature on organizational efficiency, military effectiveness remains an ill-defined concept. For some civilian and niilitary analysts, effectiveness is tied to the social structure of military organizations. The sociological approach focuses on factors such as unit cohesion, group solidarity, small-unit leadership, and Katneradschaft. Similar research seeks to link effectiveness to non-material factors like esprit, staying power, and the will-to-fight. Outside o f the small-unit focus, the sociological focus - regardless of whether the methodology is quantitative or descriptive - nlay provide special insights into the likely performance of large-scale military organizations, since it focuses on such problems a s the normative aspects o f officership, recruitment, military socialization, morale and political attitudes, and troop trainability.? The operational approach emphasizes the importance o f doctrines and
tactical
ALLAN R. MILLETT, WILLIAMSON MURRAY, and KENNETH H. WATMAN Mershon Center, The Ohio State University
The interrelated issue of rnilitary structure and effectiveness confronts planners and commanders with some of the most intractable intellectual issues associated with organizational behavior. T h e realities of preparing forces to kill and to face death in the service of the state createproblems with no ar~aloguesin other forms of social interaction. It is easier to define the behaviors one wishes to discourage in individuals - cowardice, flight, and IIOII-cooperation - than to definc the positive performance of conlplex organizations, which all armed forces inevitably become. 'The primary object o f organization,' wrote General Sir Ian Hamilton, 'is to shield people from unexpected calls upon their powers of adaptability, judgment, and decision." Yet other commanders have observed that individual and organizational flexibility is essential to military success. Despite a sizeable theoretical literature on organizational efficiency, military effectiveness remains an ill-defined concept. For some civilian and niilitary analysts, effectiveness is tied to the social structure of military organizations. The sociological approach focuses on factors such as unit cohesion, group solidarity, small-unit leadership, and Katneradschaft. Similar research seeks to link effectiveness to non-material factors like esprit, staying power, and the will-to-fight. Outside o f the small-unit focus, the sociological focus - regardless of whether the methodology is quantitative or descriptive - nlay provide special insights into the likely performance of large-scale military organizations, since it focuses on such problems a s the normative aspects o f officership, recruitment, military socialization, morale and political attitudes, and troop trainability.? The operational approach emphasizes the importance o f doctrines and
tactical