Organizational Ownership Phenomenon

I attended a hail-and-farewell today.  For those of you who haven't attended one, it's one of a long list of Army functions that purport to be tradition and morale-building but actually serves to suck up between one and 3 hours of potentially productive time.  Last night, for instance, over the course of an hour-and-a-half, we learned exactly who of the incoming and outgoing personnel in the 3 shop were married, and some of what they were going to do once re-deployed.  A Colonel sang Irish songs in honor of St. Patrick's Day.  Though all this is no doubt crucial to individual self-esteem and a well-deserved recognition after a year of service in Iraq, I can't remember a single person except the specialist who was publicly mocked by the Sergeant Major for being fat and interested in fantasy role-playing games.  It was a near-total waste of time, except that I got some chicken wings and was able to assess the male/female ratio on the J3 staff to be approximately 20:1.

However, one productive thing did come out of this event.  I came up with yet another reason that the Army is possessed of strong organizational inertia--that is to say, why it doesn't change.  The fact that everybody in this Force-level staff changed out in the period of about a month clued me into this:  Since the typical tour of duty in the Army is between one and three years, no officer has any incentive to take actions to improve his organization past his individual time-frame. 


Hypothesis:  Organizational ownership increases with the anticipated tenure of the individual in the organization.  Ray Kroc and Sam Walton had tremendous senses of organizational ownership because their lives were tied up in growing their businesses.  The typical wal-mart clerk is probably not as enthusiastic.  Likewise, Army officers who constantly change units have no incentive to view their role in the Army in light of the long-term good of their immediate organization because they are moving around so much.


Individual officers do not have the capability or incentives to work on anything that will outlast them.  Therefore, they focus on short-cycle projects that will produce immediate tangible results.  This is where the current deployment-refit-train- cycle (I think it's called something like "Life Cycle Units, or Rotational Readiness program or etc) is very beneficial to the commander.  He works through the cycle, declares victory, and goes on to his next assignment.  He has no staying power or ability to influence anything in his organization past his RIP/TOA date.

This phenomenon is not strictly limited to officers, but it seems to hit them harder.  Within 2 months of my last deployment ending, I'd estimate that 90% of officer-positions changed hands.

So what's the problem?  Well, let me make an analogy: Publicly traded businesses are often derided for taking courses of action that benefit their share prices in the short-term without regard for moral hazard or long-term consequences.  Just think about the recent banking collapse if you need an example.  They are pressured by the public clamor to keep share prices up.  This prevents them from taking actions that might be beneficial to the long-term health of the company (i.e. shedding lines of business, layoffs, etc) but are unpopular.

Apply this to the Army.  A unit commander (or other officer, but I will say "commander" here to keep it simple) has a short-term goal, just like keeping share prices high: Career advancement, i.e. his OER.  After his  2 or 3 years, he moves on to another position in another organization, or a different shop within the same organization-- but more commonly the former.  So his incentive is to do whatever he can do NOW, because he is a) rated on his short term performance, and b) he will not be around long enough to see any long-term projects to completion--hence, anything that has a less-than-sexy performance in the immediate term will hurt him.  Thus, problems have a tendency to be ignored or put off until the rotation happens, to let the next guy deal with it.

So because officers are moved around so much, they have no incentives to take on long-term unit improvements.  They focus on the immediate train-deploy cycle.  They focus on their immediate tour and not on how to build the battalion over years.

But, you ask, isn't that a good thing because of cumulative improvement to the unit?  Surely new commanders, all full of piss and vinegar, reinvigorate organizations and keep them wired tight.

You'd think so, but then account for the fact that all the expertise and teamwork built up during that time frame is constantly decimated by OTHER officers moving around.  The WHOLE ORGANIZATION can change in a period of a couple of months.  Because officers are the ones that set the training and operational agenda, every time a command position changes hands, there is a reorientation of priorities throughout the unit.  Everyone has to adjust to the new boss.  This can happen en-masse--like when the battalion commander and company commanders all change at roughly the same time-- or it can happen piecemeal, with platoon leader rotations, company commander changes, etc.  But every time there is a change, the ship has to adjust course.  In fact, a time-honored tradition in the Army is assuming authority and declaring that the last guy was all messed up and the situation needs to be fixed.  Maybe our current CoC knows something about military culture after all.

The required re-org and re-orientation following personnel turnover simply further reduces the ability of everybody else to make long-term change or adjustments that would improve the organization.  Everybody has to drop what they're doing and learn what the new boss wants.

What kind of long-term organizational improvements are we talking about?  

How about winning wars?  If postings to combat zones were permanent, would we win faster?  How about equipment and accountability problems?  If officers couldn't kick the can down the road as easily, then they might be able and motivated to take action to fix problems.

By the way, this post nicely supports my idea for a free-market HR department, in which units and individuals work at common interests to find good organizational fits, and then retain the leaders that are worth a damn.