Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:517Hits:20439954Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
HASSELBLADH, HANS (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   185261


Relevance and Presumed Innocence of Learning: a Reply to Soeters and Talbot and Fischer / Hasselbladh, Hans; Ydén, Karl   Journal Article
Ydén, Karl Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract Responding to Soeters and Talbot and Fischer, we clarify our position that learning in military organizations is highly contingent on established organizational frameworks, vocabularies, and understandings and constrained by existing power relations. The danger present in military operations increases the importance of minimizing internal frictions and constrains local experimentation and the application of different solutions. Thus, while there is learning in military organizations, the latter are less prone than large, civilian organizations to venture into the use of new and unproven solutions. The present debate about learning in military organization reflects the different basic assumptions about formal organizations in management studies as opposed to the field of organizational sociology.
Key Words Power  Learning  Military organizations  Hierarchy 
        Export Export
2
ID:   173122


Why military organizations are cautious about learning? / Hasselbladh, Hans   Journal Article
Hasselbladh, Hans Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract This article argues that military organizations display a more rigorous form of collective sensemaking than ordinary bureaucratic organizations. Military organizing is predicated on the rigorous modes of thinking and acting that follow from the particular military propensity to impose order on chaos. This trait is antithetical to modern notions of “the learning organization,” in which exploring variety and experimenting and testing out unproven methods are central. We identify two sets of structural conditions that constitute the sociocognitive landscape of military organizations and discuss how the military logic of action might be enacted in different sociocultural contexts. Our framework is brought to bear on recent research on international military missions, and in the concluding section, we summarize our arguments and discuss their wider implications in terms of trade-offs between adaptability and other capabilities in the design of military forces.
        Export Export