u05a2 The Star: The Department of Defense

Chenista Rae Straubel

BUS 4013

Prof. Gregory Gotches

May 2, 2005

Strategy

Strategy was a concept

borne in military operations

originating from the Greek work

“strategia” meaning

“generalship.” The concept of

strategy referred to “positioning”

Figure 1: 2004 Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the
President and the Congress, retrieved April 30, 2005.
and once positioned, attention

switched to tactics and the best use of resources. Strategy serves to bridge the

gap between policy and tactics. Strategy and tactics act as a bridge between

ends and means and the structure of the US Military with all of its branches

clearly reflect that strategy is a means to political ends. The concept was later

adapted for use in business (Nichols, 2000).

Like business, the US Military faces new challenges and is in the

processes of reviewing traditional strategies and structures. Transformations

taking place within the DoD challenge the status quo with the following new
objectives (2004 Secretary of Defense annual report to the President and the

Congress):

1. Fashioning new defense strategies, aligning force size constructs, and

instituting a new approach for balancing risks that takes into account

immediate war plans as well as the risks to people and transformation.

2. The department is moving from “threat-based” to “capabilities-based”

defense planning. Core capability portfolios focus on deterrence by

identifying who, what, when, where and how we may be threatened.

3. Attracting and retaining talent within the Armed Forces including reward

based systems such as pay and quality of life for troops and their families.

4. Modernizing the personnel management system that preserves merit

principles, respect Veterans’ Preference, and maintains union

involvement.

5. Instituting realistic budgeting respecting emergency supplements for

unknown costs of fighting wars rather than sustaining readiness.

6. Developing military capabilities beginning with the basics: roll out early

models faster and then adding capabilities to the system as they become

available.

7. Transforming the way war plans are prepared by reducing development

time, increasing the frequency of updates, and focusing on flexibility and

adaptability.

8. A new “Lessons Learned” policy embeds a team with US Central

Command providing real-time feedback addressing impact and success.

 9. Moving from a structure driven environment to a positional driven

environment that focuses on security.

10. Extension of authority to establish new Joint National Training Capability

models to train and prepare forces to engage jointly.

Structure

In the past, the Department of Defense (DoD) fostered a traditional tall

and wide hierarchy and chain of command with management demonstrating and

utilizing transactional leadership. Lateral functional departments serve under and

report to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. Traditionally, military

departments including the Army, Navy, Air Force, Office of the Secretary of

Defense, Inspector General, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant

Commands act as independent braches without department processes

supporting unilateral cooperation. However new agencies within the DoD are

exploring transformational leadership in an effort to train and therefore unify

departmental forces to act as teams to accomplish joint mission and goals.

Transformation of the military includes an exploration and implementation of

future structures to support future strategies.

 Figure 2: 2004 Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President and the Congress,
retrieved April 30, 2005.

People

People are an important part of transformation and the key to the process.

Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld states that “I really do believe it’s

the people. It’s the attitude…the culture” (Miles, 2005). Transformation requires

top-level emphasis and Rumsfeld hopes for the “ripple effect” to reach throughout

the department “almost like tossing a pebble in a pond” (Ibid.). Rumsfeld

acknowledges that change “simply defies human nature. People get comfortable

in their patterns and habits, and change interjects a degree of disruption and

uncertainty that most try to avoid.” The “trick” he feels “is to get people to let go

of their old practices so they can adapt to the current requirements” (Ibid.). For

the Defense Department that means abandoning force structure that is

“organized, trained, equipped and conditioned to fight big armies, navies and air

forces” (Ibid.) and accepting and adapting to the new challenges of current

threats. It is difficult for people to adjust as uncertainties increase. Rumsfeld is

determined that DoD leaders can set resistance aside and embrace the new

strategies and structures that will help move the department forward with self-

confidence reflecting their willingness “to take risks and to alter the way things

were being done” (Ibid.).

Processes

The US Military operational risk process addresses four key areas (2004

Secretary of Defense annual report to the President and the Congress):

1. Do we have the right forces available?

2. Are our forces postured to succeed?

3. Are our forces currently ready?

4. Are our forces employed consistently with our strategic priorities?

Transformational changes taking place within the military is about

overcoming threats by focusing on our ability to create plans that can be easily

adapted to events unfolding, real-time mission training, allocating resources

when they are needed to get the job done, and achieving near-term objectives

rather than long-term outcomes. Operational transformation is one dimension of

defense strategy, but does not represent the entire strategy.

Policies and processes are assessed from three perspectives:

1. Likelihood of failing to accomplish a stated objective;

 2. Consequences of that failure on the Department’s ability to achieve overall

strategic goals; and

3. Timing (how consequences change over the years).

Rewards

Like business, the DoD realizes that there is a war for talent and knows

that it must compete with the private sector for talent. Transformational

processes are reviewing and coordinating efforts that will result in attracting and

retaining talent within the Armed Forces by implementing a reward based system

focusing on pay and quality of life for troops and their families. The new system

is intended to modernize the personnel management system and to preserve

merit principles, respect Veterans’ Preference, and maintains union involvement

(Ibid.).

Discussion

Traditional organization strategy exercised in business today has its roots

and was adopted and adapted from military operations. The new principles

explored for building new logic corporations through transformational change

actually has Biblical roots. You can review the principles used in the Bible to the

new logic and find similarities and parallels in strategy, structure, processes,

people, and rewards. The values (processes) demonstrated in the new logic

corporations that focus on integrity, honesty, and unified mission, vision, and

goals (customers and employees) are the same as those taught and extended to

the “vehicles” and “instruments” (people, disciples, saints, apostles, etc.) used in

the Bible. Even the reward based systems of Biblical times parallels that
unfolding today. Key characters in Biblical times also used both transactional

(Old Testament) and transformational (New Testament) leadership capabilities.

The forces of Biblical times were also “capability” based rather than threat-based.

Lateral structures utilizing empowered individuals (saints, apostles, disciples,

etc.) are demonstrated throughout Biblical history. Flexibility, adaptability,

attracting and retaining talent, position, and feedback are strategies emphasized

and exercised throughout the Bible.

The new logic isn’t new at all, it is merely something that is just moving

into awareness and consciousness and is unfolding because of a newly acquired

perception of threats and globalization.

References

2004 Secretary of Defense annual report to the President and the Congress.

United States Department of Defense. Retrieved April 30, 2005 from

http://www.defenselink.mil/execsec/adr2004/adr2004_toc.html

Miles, D. (2005). Rumsfeld: people key to department's transformation. American

Forces Information Services: News Articles. Retrieved Apr 22, 2005, from

http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050317_233.html

Nichols, F. (2000). Strategy: Definitions and meaning. Distance Consulting.

Retrieved April 30, 2005 from

http://home.att.net/~nickols/strategy_definition.htm

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), (2001). Organization and functions

guidebook. Retrieved Apr. 22, 2005, from Office of the Secretary of

Defense: Defense Agencies: DOD Field Activities Web site:

 http://www.defenselink.mil/odam/omp/pubs/GuideBook/ToC.htm#TABLE%

20OF%20CONTENTS.

Office of force transformation. (n.d.). Retrieved Apr. 22, 2005, from

http://www.oft.osd.mil/apart.cfm.

Sample, D. (2005). Facing the future: transforming DoD is a 'constant process'.

American Forces Information Services: News Articles. Retrieved Apr 22,

2005, from http://www.dod.mil/news/Mar2005/20050328_331.html