Defense Models: How to Understand Defense Organizations ‘Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken’. -Jane Austen, Emma, inventor of the model novel, inter alia Thomas-Durell Young, Cert., Ph.D., Dipl. Editor-in-Chief, Defense & Security Analysis Monterey, CA •Every defense organization is different from others •History, constitution, laws, culture, and society all play a factor in shaping how these organizations are structured, managed, and oriented •Knowing the underlying assumptions and cultural forces that exist in a defense organization can assist officials and analysts understand its corporate behavior and values •The authors of this paper offer four different generic ‘models’ of defence organisations, suggesting that they are mutually-exclusive •These are: •Rational is focusing upon warfighting •Emotional is the antithesis of rational where choices of the day dominate •Political is where a political solution is chosen for the country such as conscription •Military is where the entire defense organization is controlled by the military with no proper civilian oversight ØN.B.: Each model is hard to sustain, thus resulting in one style being dominant with elements of the others Introduction •The method conceptualizes existing forms of defence organisations into a single framework that can be understood and compared with others •Data informing the model is taken from a wide-range of unclassified documents and observations of structures, e.g., OOB, acquisitions, training, etc. •But the method attempts to go beyond analyzing these facts in order to determine what motivates and explains an institution’s behavior •An analysis based on the represented data in the model provides governments and analysts with a visual representation of the underlying forces that animate it and influences decision-making •Note that there is no ideal defense ‘model’ •Critically, the data admittedly lacks precision and exactitude ØLike a work of art inspired by Cubism, although the image may be slightly unfocussed and suggestive, a picture nevertheless is visible • • • Methodology and Objectives •At the end of this course students should be able to •Understand the defense models theory and methodology •Know the definitions of the 4 models of defense organizations •Rational, emotional, political, and military •Distinguish differences amongst the 4 models •Explain how and why the four different models differ •Apply scoring values of a defense organization to enable the method to produce both a current and a desired graphic picture •Describe what the actual picture represents and how it is a predictor of the organization’s behavior •Produce a comparative analysis of various scored defense institutions to find similarities and dissimilarities Learning Objectives Defence Effectiveness Orientation •Public Interest Corporate Interest Resource/input (introvert) Product/output (extrovert) The vertical dimension differentiates effectiveness criteria, that emphasises the extent to which the public interest is served and satisfied, vs. the extent to which the corporate interest is emphasised in the organisation. Since we are specifically talking about a “public service” organisation this is most important criteria for its effectiveness. The horizontal dimension differentiates the effectiveness as a result of the external (looking outwards and anticipating its challenges) versus the internal orientation of the organization (watching its bellybutton and crying for more resources). Defence Models •Public Interest Resource/Input (introvert) Product/Output (extrovert) Corporate Interest Rational Model Product: Military operations for the defence and security for society and use of force for serious political gain Leaders: Chosen for producing results and future potential for growth; knowledgeable and creative administration Personnel: Employ and train professional warriors Budget: Balanced amongst personnel, equipment, training/operations Structure: Quick to change with the environment Capability: Strive for excellence in everything Readiness: React/deploy in hours, not in days or in weeks Change: Willing to move to better defence model or idea Axiom: Deliver winning force for the country, if, when, and where needed I think this should be the consequence of presenting them – Rational, Political, Military, Emotional. We need to put our heads together to develop a good questionnaire , similar to the OCAI Political Model Product: ‘Territorial defence’; Industrial tasks; Social security, welfare for local communities, creating jobs; Firefighting and disaster relief Leaders: Conformity and loyalty are rewarded within a politicized administration Personnel: Under-trained and under-equipped conscripts and reserves Budget: Heavy on personnel, sometimes on equipment, very small on action, or deliberate long-term investment Structure: Paper-planning and stockpiling; symbolic participation in operations and with a low operational tempo Capability: Limited military capability; ‘hopes’ for working defence organization in extremis and rarely testing the true military capabilities Readiness: Ready to deploy partially in several months and even a year Change: There is no need for change unless disaster comes, hence limited capacity for reform; the model is a national ‘religion’ and is beyond question by the parliament, military, or public Axiom: Short-term political goals presented as ‘best defence’ Military Model Product: Military structures and functions for themselves Leaders: Military having political control and/or heavily misusing resources Personnel: Large, wasteful and lazy Budget: Corrupt Structure: Defense irrelevant, bloated Capability: Very limited or inadequate; Readiness: Not interested in deployment Change: Status quo is fixed and never challenged Axiom: Parochial military corporate goals presented as ‘best defence’ Emotional Model Product: Confusion in a ‘defence mess’, wide variety of activity of little defence relevance; deceitful eloquence Leaders: Gaining and holding power first; management politicized; often strong politics and week military; decisions based upon emotion/national pride and the choice of the day Personnel: Servicemen capable individually, but with limited training and support this deteriorates away from true defence spirit and abilities Budget: Heavy on personnel; weak on equipment and operations Structure: Few really good modern capabilities Capability: May be able to deploy small amounts of capability for short periods of an international operation or for supporting floods and snow-storms at home Readiness: Limited Change: insufficient political strength at the national level; Suits equally well week politicians and complacent Generals; trying gradual change which prolongs agony Axiom: Society cheating itself as if having defence Answering the Questionnaire •Assignment: •Select a defense organization and fill out the questionnaire assigning values to the 9 questions •Address the current, as well as the desired defense organization •Assign entries to the defense models’ grid •Objectives: •Gives quantitative representation of the current model of a defense organization •Articulates clearly what should constitute the desired model •Provides for wide enough polling; representing what people really think about any defence organisation •Offers an opportunity for agreed and consensual picture •Suggests a viable opportunity for change with least resistance CURRENT VS. DESIRED (EXAMPLE 1) Current: Desired: We can put some real world defence organisations here without naming them explicitely. CURRENT VS. DESIRED (EXAMPLE 2) Current: Desired: Real world defence organisation. CURRENT VS. DESIRED (EXAMPLE 3) Current: Desired: Real world defence organisation. Analyzing the Results •Entry of perceived condition of the defense organization produces a picture showing what motivates it •Adding the data of the desired defense organization produces two revealing data points •The extent to which the current defense organization is out of balance with the desired model •Presents the delta between the actual and the desired •The size of this delta can be thought of as a representation of the size of the gap between current perceptions and aspirations •The analysis should provide to officials and analysts a clear picture of where the defense budget is not being spent •Do you find the defense models theory and methodology convincing and if not, why not? •Could there possible be more than the 4 models of defense organizations than presented in this methodology? •Are the 4 models sufficiently different to warrant the current number? •Did the scoring values introduced into the model accurately represent your perceptions of the current and desired defense organization? •Does the ‘picture’ of the actual defense organization produced by your input constitute a convincing predictor of the organization’s current behavior? •What is the value for decision-makers reviewing a comparative analysis of various scored defense institutions? •Are there possibly other models or data factors that could be developed that might produce a more accurate picture of a defense organization? Questions for Discussion/Debate