| ID | 185259 |
| Title Proper | Why It Is Important to Be Cautious in the Analysis of Military Organizations |
| Other Title Information | a Reply to Hasselbladh and Ydén |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Soeters, Joseph |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | This article is a reply to a recent publication by Hasselbladh and Yden in this journal, entitled “Why Military Organizations Are Cautious About Learning?” They argue that there is good reason for military organizations not being very successful in organizational learning. Based on historical experiences related to the military’s bureaucratic character and specific task environment, they argue that military organization’s hesitation to learn is not necessarily dysfunctional. This reply refutes this assertion as it is not based on sufficient knowledge of organizational learning in general, but more importantly because it “scholarly” legitimizes the impeding of attempts to improve military performance in the broad sense of the word. |
| `In' analytical Note | Armed Forces and Society Vol. 48, No.2; Apr 2022: p.480-485 |
| Journal Source | Armed Forces and Society Vol: 48 No 2 |
| Key Words | Military Organization ; Afghanistan ; Organizational Learning ; Peace Missions ; Single-Loop Learning ; Double-Loop Learning |