Military innovation should include personnel reform. If people are the most valuable resource, updating doctrine and equipment is 2/3 of the equation, leaving ample room for improvement.
So what defines military innovation?
Three characteristics…
Three characteristics…
Military Innovation has a set of 3 components (Grissom 2006)
“First, an innovation changes the manner in which military formations function in the field.”
(The people you put in the field will change the manner how the units function in the field)
“First, an innovation changes the manner in which military formations function in the field.”
(The people you put in the field will change the manner how the units function in the field)
“Second, an innovation is significant in scope and impact. Minor reforms or those that have had ambiguous effects on a military organization are excluded.”
(I would say, without people, and the right kind, that has tremendous scope / impact).
(I would say, without people, and the right kind, that has tremendous scope / impact).
“Third, innovation is tacitly equated with greater military effectiveness.”
Basic business models require the right people (with huge salaries) to increased effectiveness.
@Carter_PE recently posted about leadership and its “effectiveness.”
hbr.org/2013/09/triple…
Basic business models require the right people (with huge salaries) to increased effectiveness.
@Carter_PE recently posted about leadership and its “effectiveness.”
hbr.org/2013/09/triple…
And @CMC_MarineCorps is right to highlight the lynchpin for the future operating concept depends on a new personnel system in #TM2030
So, personnel reform meets all 3 criteria for military innovation and should be treated as such. The same factors that impact innovation, impact personnel reform, and I posit, more strongly, as culture is closely tied to people.
#Innovate #Reform #Personnel
#Innovate #Reform #Personnel
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
