Changing minds in the Army: Why is it so difficult and what to do about it?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:17:51 -0500

With the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army now finds itself in a time of extraordinary fiscal and national security uncertainty. In such an environment, it seems naïve, or at least overly optimistic, to assume that all, or
even most, of a strategic leader’s current assumptions will be just as relevant several years into the future. It follows then, that senior leaders may need to be willing to change their minds on important issues instead of clinging to increasingly obsolete ideas and positions. For this monograph, changing one’s mind implies a reversal of a previous judgment or position on an issue.
(Retrive from http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/files/1179-summary.pdf. 24 Feb 2015).

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Feb 24 at 2015 1:16 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:16:14 -0500

That was an interesting paper.

While the Army prides itself on After-Action Reports, Hot-Washes, Lessons-Learned, etc. and uses those to rapidly adjust tactical and operational plans and activities, it is much slower to do so in other areas, such as social issues.

As the study points out, a person's attitude and willingness to change are affected by their frames of reference, their upbringing and experiences, their intelligence, and their exposure to personnel with different views.

The military is a pretty closed society, where its members are expected to conform to set standards, traditions, policies and rules. Any deviation from them is discouraged and, in most cases, punished.

The repetitive nature of military life "hardens the wiring of the brain", as pointed out, and, therefore, it is very tough for people to overcome decades of looking at something from one angle or point of view. This is exasperated by the military culture that discourages subordinate dissent or disagreement with senior leaders.

As society changes, so will the military, but it will take time. Today's junior NCOs and officers will be senior NCOs and officers in the future and they will carry with them a new set of values, social mores, and opinions of what is right and wrong. It will just take time.

Forcing change, as we see going on now with the politically correct, social engineering being thrust upon our military, is the wrong way to go about it, for the very reasons stated above.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2015 1:58 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 13:58:21 -0500

The old addage about old dogs and new tricks comes to mind. As does the one about horses and water. You can give people all the tools they need to change and grow, but at the end of the day it comes down to whether or not they choose to use it.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Feb 24 at 2015 4:14 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 16:14:18 -0500

Why is it so difficult to change minds in the Army?
- The Army is a conservative organization. By definition, this means that the Army is "disposed to preserve existing organizations, institutions, etc or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change".
- The Army is a bureaucracy. By definition, this means "administration characterized by excessive red tape and routine". The red tape is loosened during wartime but it comes back with a vengence in peacetime. Look at how hard it was for the SECDEF to get MRAPs to the Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only by extraordinary measures and leadership...
- Senior Army leaders are older people. Older people tend to be less agile and adaptable. Ever hear the saying "can't teach an old dog new tricks"? These old people were successful for certain reasons. Very hard to get them to do something new that goes against what they think was successful in the past.
- Winners stick with what they know while losers go to the drawing board. This applies to sports and war. Championship teams are hestitant to make changes even when changes are needed. Teams that don't make the championship do whatever it takes to get to the championship. Look at the Brits, French, and Germans from WWI to WWII.
- The natural friction between effectiveness and efficiency. The American taxpayer wants the best bang for their taxpayer buck (efficiency). A Soldier in a foxhole does not care about efficiency, only effectiveness. Congress seems to care about neither (just saying). This natural friction tends to slow down progress and initiative.