Desired organizational characteristics

Not every organization is capable of successful execution of approaches described in the preceding section. Let’s consider – again, based largely on historical examples -- some of the key characteristics that help an organization to succeed in resilient adaptations to technological surprise. A particularly widely recognized characteristics of such nature is flexibility: the ability of the organization to change its organizational structure, techniques, procedures, and other forms of its 4 operation, even if such changes are drastic and contradict established norms and past experiences. For instance, although in 1941 in North Africa the British possessed excellent anti-aircraft guns, the inflexible regimental culture prevented them from using the guns against the German tanks. (Handel, 1987) Another important characteristic is agility: the organization must be able to perform its actions rapidly and to eliminate any barriers that may cause a delay in decision or execution. This often requires the culture of delegating the authority to the lowest echelon of the organization and encouraging initiative of even the most junior members of the organization. For instance, when in 1986 the Afghan guerrillas started to use Stinger missiles (a technological surprise) against Soviet helicopters, the lack of independent initiative and creativity among the Soviet junior officers was a significant factor in slow (about 18 months) adaptation of the Soviets forces. (Miller, 2014) Both agility and flexibility must be supported by effective intelligence: the ability of the organization to obtain, analyse and disseminate intelligence about the technological surprise – e.g., the novel weapon system and its effect of the organization’s operations and assets, or a new tactical or strategic context – completely and efficiently, in spite of the stress and disruption caused by the threat. For instance, when in 1941 the Germans used their 88 mm gun against British tanks, the British failed to collect sufficient intelligence about the events, and remained unaware of the German weapon for several months after its initial use in a battle. (Handel, 1987) Last but not least breadth and diversity are vitally important: the organization should combine a diverse set of technical and cultural competencies, as well as assets that are capable of a variety of functions under different conditions. This is necessary in order to re-orient an organization effectively against the technological surprise and to combine the competencies and capabilities in novel ways. For instance, when facing Egyptian anti-tank Sagger missiles – a technological surprise – the Israeli homogenous tank units were unable to adapt until they were belatedly diversified with infantry and artillery. (Miller, 2014)

Conclusions

Analysis of technological surprises in warfare – particularly the study of historical cases of such surprises – is uniquely valuable for identifying the advantages and limitations of resilience-based approaches, the approaches to conducting resilient activities after an unwelcome surprise, and the characteristics that an organization must foster for the sake of improving its resilience. Historical experiences offer insights into several key elements – typical activities and ways of executing them – that are common to successful adaptations to technological surprises. However, to build capabilities for effective execution of such activities, an organization must develop several critical characteristics. These include flexibility, agility, effective use of intelligence, and breadth and diversity. While resilience-based approaches are likely to be less costly and more practical than risk-based approaches, leaders of an organization must recognize that improving the resilience of an organization must not lead to neglecting appropriate measures for reducing the risk of a hazardous event. 5

Annotated bibliography

On flexibility: recovery from technological and doctrinal surprise on the battlefield. Stanford University Press. Argues that recovery from surprise depends largely on a characteristic of an organization the authors call flexibility. Proves the assertion by considering multiple historical cases of recovery from surprises. Handel, M. I. (1987). Technological surprise in war. Intelligence and National Security, 2(1), 1-53. Offers a typology and conditions of technological surprises, as well as means to enhance or counter the technological surprise; uses a number of historical examples. Miller, J. H. (2014). Strategic culture as the basis for military adaptive capacity: Overcoming battlefield technological surprises. CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania. Uses three in-depth case studies of historical events, connected largely to technological surprises, in order to identify cultural and organizational traits that support resilient adaptation. National Research Council. (2012). Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13457 The White House. (2013). Presidential policy directive: Critical infrastructure security and resilience. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil

  techdirtblog  slashdotblog  justhealthguide  healthandblog  supercomputerworld