Carl Von Clausewitz: The Culture Of Military Subcultures

General Tommy Franks defines well practiced leadership and superior intelligence for combat decision making. His personal values and character define how all Army leaders should lead their men. General Franks practices the Army Values religiously and sets an example for courage and commitment. His successful accomplishments will be addressed in this essay, including how the Warrior Ethos and Army values were displayed by his decisions.

Comparing and contrasting of military theorists Carl Von Clausewitz and John R. Boyd and how relevant there ideas are in the military today. Both have differing theories on the nature of war, but fundamentally similar in the simplicity and psychology of a very complex environment. Clausewitz’s ideas were more strategic in nature with a focus on a “Trinity” to address the enemy’s center of gravity drawing on his ideas for how and why war exists. While Boyd’s work was more tactical with the development of the OODA loop out maneuver and defeat his adversary in aerial combat. Even though they focused on different ends of the spectrum within the nature of war their theories have paved the way for Marine Corps doctrine and leadership development

enrolled at Cornell University and became the staff writer for The Cornell Daily Sun furthering his passion for writing but also sharing his views on pacifism and America joining World War II.

Army Doctrine Reference Publication 1-0 states, “living by and upholding the moral principles of the Army Ethic” is the foundation to our profession. An organization cannot survive if there are no foundation for morals. The organization will internally implode. This is a critical fact for the Army. Individuals that do not have a foundation that aligns with the Army’s foundation is detrimental to the organization. The purpose for this short paper is to explore the fundamentals of our profession; examine the need for structure; how to return to basics of the profession; who needs to enforce standards; finally, implementing a culture change within the Army. Army leaders have categorized the four problems that currently plague the Army

Today’s strategic environment, whether government or corporate, is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) often times characterized by “wicked problems” or unsolvable problems. Compiled during the early 19th century, Clausewitz’s manuscript “On War” arguably posited the same conclusion in relation to the strategic level of war. He described war as uncertain, unpredictable, and marked by chance. The more the scale moved from the tactical realm to the strategic realm, the more complex war became due to the aforementioned variables. Society today must contend with the impacts of globalization, which has led to significant changes in economic, social, and cultural norms. These changes have resulted in compressed timelines and reduced decision space. With so much information available, the risk of information overload has presented challenges to how individuals approach problem solving. As a result, society has become over reliant on what Guy Claxton defines as deliberate mode (d-mode), “a way of knowing that relies on reason and logic.” (Claxton, p2)

Army leaders must balance the link between the Army’s culture and it’s climate and institutional practices. When there is a proper balance it has a huge impact on the mindset of the Army’s Soldiers. Their actions or inactions impacts the five key attributes of the profession, and the four fields of expertise, and have long term effects on the Army’s culture and climate. These actions influence Soldiers’ perceptions that they are serving professional who have answered the call of service to the republic, it is important that Soldiers understand that their role is a calling and not just a job.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

This concise paper addresses a lifetime of learning on part of the author and the gracious graduated squadron commander interviewee who leant his time and wisdom. In the next few paragraphs the three key elements that will be addressed include: the author’s leadership philosophy, elicited in the hot seat from the Group Commander, a summary of the author’s commander interview, and an analysis of the interview through the lens of the author’s own philosophy.

Summary: In this article the authors are addressing future leaders, and they immediately inform the reader that because there is more complexity considerably more complex issues and technologies than a century ago in the operational military environment, there is a great need for military leaders to achieve autonomy in terms of adapting to and learning about the evolving environment. In short, leaders must be smarter and better prepared for a changing world.

Understand how to plan, monitor and review the implementation and communication of innovation and change in an organisation – pg

Carl Von Clausewitz is one of the most well known, as well as important, war theorists in our history. Although he has been dead for almost two decades, he still plays a major role in shaping military thinkers around the world. The reason his theory is somehow still relevant is because of its flexibility. He did not prepare for nuclear warfare or cyber warfare, but you can apply his theory to the 21st century. Clausewitz believed in two levels of war and that war was continuous. Clausewitz believed that when one goes to war, they should have an achievable political objective; "war is the continuation of politics by other means” (Clausewitz, 1832).

Not only innovation lead to change inside organizations, but also some changes in side organizations can lead to innovation. Moreover, managing innovation and change is not an absolute easy process as it seems, as it requires lots of human interaction with different backgrounds, contexts, cultures that require aligning all your human resources to respond to new innovations, and related changes and this will only be done via good and efficient leadership. Generally, innovations and related changes may include change in organization structure workforce planning, marketing strategy, geographical distribution , culture, …ect which directly impact human resources in any organization , therefore the role of the leader is so crucial to manage tensions, conflicts, resistances, uneasiness and development areas that usually appear with new changes and innovations. Leading Innovation and change being part of managing human and organization behaviors is kind of a complex processes that include several factors, stages, models, perceptions and definitely outcomes. In this paper I will get a deep dive and close up view stating the various definitions, different related models, how they work in practical life and what kind of failures such models face in real life implementation; along with a self reflection to the applied experiences of such study and what will be the development plan leading to more successful practices in future.

From many of these examples and articles, we can gather much information over the relationship between innovation and strategic management. Although, some areas may not be proven in its fullest capacity, there are undoubtedly ways that innovation improved business operations and practices, which can be seen in examples such as Apple, Microsoft, Dominos, and Samsung. On the other hand, not every business incorporating innovation is a success story. In the dynamic days we find ourselves in today, business and organizations are digging deeper into the wells of innovation. We have all come to enjoy the benefits and I am not sure of anyone that would want to

Tidd and Bessant (2009) argued that “Unless an organization is able to move into further innovation, it risks being left behind as others take the lead in changing their offerings, their operational processes or the underlying models that drive their business”.

While processing and managing innovation, the particular innovated spirits and substance of a company, including innovated values, beliefs, norms, company’s structure and working environment, is fostered and advanced. According to Margaret Rouse (2015), innovative culture cultivated by a company’s leader “generally subscribe to the belief that innovation is not the province of top leadership but can come from anyone in the organization.”