This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Are there lessons we could all learn from how the modern military copes with unexpected situations?

Hi,


A couple of serious issues I was involved with this weekend made me think of this. One was in the engineering world to do with the day job, I was reviewing a very serious incident report (fortunately no fatalities but very close) involving a mixture of everyone trying to do the best they could, but perhaps over reliant on structured checklists which had completely missed an entire piece of equipment in a fairly unique situation. The other was a medical issue in the family, once again all the individual hospital staff were doing their best, but there was a bit of the process that just didn't cope with a particular situation.


Which made me think of something that's long been at the back of my mind: I've never worked in a military environment, but my impression of the modern military from the contacts I have had is that there is still a very structured hierarchy, chain of command, and focus on process, but equally it appears that somehow there is also the ability for small units to have the skills and freedom to evaluate and make their own decisions when challenging circumstances arise - exactly the key skills that were missing in the two examples above. 


So really two questions I'd really like to know other people's views on (particularly those who have worked across both the military and civilian worlds): firstly are my impressions above correct? And if so (or even if a bit wrong but on the right lines) are there lessons we can learn from how this works that we can apply to the management of engineering activities in the wider world - particularly in safety critical issues where we need structure but also need the ability to rapidly and effectively cope with new problems when they come up?   


Thanks,


Andy
Parents
  • A few thoughts from me.

    For context;  
    I served for 12 years as a Royal Engineer (Territorial). When I joined as a Sapper, I was a Technician working for CEGB (HV Transmission). By the time I left as a SNCO, I was a Head Office Training Manager which I would equate to SO2 (Major/Sqn Ldr). As an aside I had developed my qualifications from HNC & Certificate in Industrial Management to MSc (in HRD not engineering). My IET predecessor institution had also invited me to apply for fellowship. Much later in career I worked for the IET and led, for a time, efforts to develop Armed Forces special registration schemes. So, during my career, I worked at every level except the very highest on an “equal footing”, both civilian and military.

    My military service was atypical, because after the first couple of years, I was part of a specialist military team, recruited explicitly for civilian expertise. So, in practice on the ground (or “in the field”) whoever had the best expertise in effect “led”. The usual military command structure applied, but only the overall task came from the “top down”. I haven’t read the book that Maurice referenced, but prima facie it seems to align, with the concept that leadership is about strategic goal setting and support to the front line (to simplify).

    A very structured approach can certainly be an asset and there are times when it is essential (e.g. HV safety procedures, being under fire), however it can create stifle thinking and create dependency. Most military personnel with a high level of technical training are equipped to use initiative and judgement. However, many former service people without such skills have “fallen by the wayside” once the structure of military life disappears.

    At the time when I was moving into a more “strategic” role (mid 90s) I was very influenced by my functional leader about empowerment and the sort of ideas being written about by Tsvold (in his earlier book) which I used as part of my MSc research.
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.473

    Andy,

    What you seem to be describing is “groupthink” or at least “confirmation bias”. I recall many years ago a fatal accident on an 11kv switchboard. Procedurally everything was fine, but there was a difference in understanding about the limit of the work, which was never teased out.  The responsible engineer was tried and acquitted, but a life was lost.

    There is always a balance to be struck between “following orders” and “challenging”. Good order and discipline are very important in many activities, military and civilian. However, I suggest that wherever possible a broad consensus is built, if necessary, by deliberately encouraging those who might be deferential to speak up.  The “awkward squad“ also often have something useful to offer and can be productive if their energy is harnessed!     

Reply
  • A few thoughts from me.

    For context;  
    I served for 12 years as a Royal Engineer (Territorial). When I joined as a Sapper, I was a Technician working for CEGB (HV Transmission). By the time I left as a SNCO, I was a Head Office Training Manager which I would equate to SO2 (Major/Sqn Ldr). As an aside I had developed my qualifications from HNC & Certificate in Industrial Management to MSc (in HRD not engineering). My IET predecessor institution had also invited me to apply for fellowship. Much later in career I worked for the IET and led, for a time, efforts to develop Armed Forces special registration schemes. So, during my career, I worked at every level except the very highest on an “equal footing”, both civilian and military.

    My military service was atypical, because after the first couple of years, I was part of a specialist military team, recruited explicitly for civilian expertise. So, in practice on the ground (or “in the field”) whoever had the best expertise in effect “led”. The usual military command structure applied, but only the overall task came from the “top down”. I haven’t read the book that Maurice referenced, but prima facie it seems to align, with the concept that leadership is about strategic goal setting and support to the front line (to simplify).

    A very structured approach can certainly be an asset and there are times when it is essential (e.g. HV safety procedures, being under fire), however it can create stifle thinking and create dependency. Most military personnel with a high level of technical training are equipped to use initiative and judgement. However, many former service people without such skills have “fallen by the wayside” once the structure of military life disappears.

    At the time when I was moving into a more “strategic” role (mid 90s) I was very influenced by my functional leader about empowerment and the sort of ideas being written about by Tsvold (in his earlier book) which I used as part of my MSc research.
    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/job.473

    Andy,

    What you seem to be describing is “groupthink” or at least “confirmation bias”. I recall many years ago a fatal accident on an 11kv switchboard. Procedurally everything was fine, but there was a difference in understanding about the limit of the work, which was never teased out.  The responsible engineer was tried and acquitted, but a life was lost.

    There is always a balance to be struck between “following orders” and “challenging”. Good order and discipline are very important in many activities, military and civilian. However, I suggest that wherever possible a broad consensus is built, if necessary, by deliberately encouraging those who might be deferential to speak up.  The “awkward squad“ also often have something useful to offer and can be productive if their energy is harnessed!     

Children
No Data