The Yin-Yang Military: Ambidextrous Perspectives on Change in Military Organizations

247 Pages·2021·2.824 MB·English

by  Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers, René Moelker, Esmeralda Kleinreesink, Jan Van der Meulen, Joseph Soeters, Robert Beeres

Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers ·
René Moelker · Esmeralda Kleinreesink ·
Jan Van der Meulen · Joseph Soeters ·
Robert Beeres   Editors
The Yin-Yang
Military
Ambidextrous Perspectives on Change
in Military Organizations
The Yin-Yang Military
Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers
(cid:129)
é
Ren Moelker Esmeralda Kleinreesink
(cid:129) (cid:129)
Jan Van der Meulen Joseph Soeters
(cid:129) (cid:129)
Robert Beeres
Editors
The Yin-Yang Military
Ambidextrous Perspectives on Change
in Military Organizations
123
Editors
Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers RenéMoelker
Faculty of Military Sciences Faculty of Military Sciences
Netherlands Defence Academy Netherlands Defence Academy
Breda,The Netherlands Breda,The Netherlands
Esmeralda Kleinreesink Jan Van derMeulen
RoyalNetherlands AirForce Den Haag,TheNetherlands
Utrecht, The Netherlands
RobertBeeres
JosephSoeters Faculty of Military Sciences
Schoolof Social andBehavioral Sciences Netherlands Defence Academy
Tilburg University Breda,The Netherlands
Tilburg, TheNetherlands
ISBN978-3-030-52432-6 ISBN978-3-030-52433-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52433-3
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2021
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Prologue: Ambidexterity, Viability, and Identity
The military will need to be ambidextrous, which is being
equallyskillfulin(seemingly)contradictorycompetencies.
JosephSoeters(2008:109)
Introduction
Formerprofessorinmilitarymanagementandorganization,JosephSoeters,iswell
acquaintedwiththemilitary,bothinTheNetherlandsandabroad.From2008,inhis
research, he has spurred the military to be(come) ambidextrous, and this volume
aimstoexplorethisrecommendationfromseveralperspectives.Amongothers,the
authorsaskwhyweareinneedofsuchambidextrousmilitaryandwhatexactlythis
concept will contribute to military management practices? Others are interested in
thewaysinwhichambidexterityandthemilitaryarerelatedandintheimplications
of being an ambidextrous military.
This current volume may well be considered a sequel to Managing Military
Organizations. Theory and practice (Soeters et al. 2010), for, at the time, the
underlying ethos were that future military leaders, in their education, were to
develop in-depth knowledge on the nature of military organizations. To this end,
from an interdisciplinary perspective, Soeters et al. applied generic and conven-
tional management- and organization theories to military organizations, arguing
(2010: 1) that the military is an organization with two faces.
Onedealswith‘cold’peacetimeandroutineconditions,hence,resembling‘conventional’
organizations.Theotheroperatesin‘hot’conditions,duringcrisisandpeaceoperationsor
outright war. In the latter circumstances, the military have the authority on behalf of the
statetouseviolenceandcompelpeopletodothingstheywouldprobablynotdowithout
themilitary’sactionsandinstructions.
This volume takes it one step further, as today’s militaries have to operate con-
tinually in ever varying ‘cold’ circumstances and ‘hot’ conditions. They may be
deployed in manifold ways, ranging from the defense of national or allied territo-
ries, the support of (inter)national authorities in case of natural disasters, fighting
terrorism, or providing assistance in coping with cope with infectious diseases.
Moreover,militaryoperationshavebecomeincreasinglydependentoncooperation
v
vi Prologue:Ambidexterity,Viability,andIdentity
betweencivilianandmilitaryagenciesand—atindividuallevels—betweencivilian
and military men and women.
Thus, armed forces and their military have had to transform into organizations
withmanyfacesandfacialexpressions—fromsmileandwavetoshockandawe—
operating in various structures, commands and networks, multitasking, performing
multifaceted roles, working and living amid differing cultures, in Western and
non-Western contexts.
Ambidexterity: Viability
To us, these manifestations of modern military organizations are the essence of
whatthisvolumetriestocapturebyambidexterity.Militaryhaslittle choice butto
manageandorganizethemselvesambidextrouslytobeabletoachieve(seemingly)
contradictory goals. It has to be noted, however, that in literature, ambidexterity is
not exactly defined or described. Originally, ambidexterity is used to express an
exceptional occurrence (i.e., the ability to use both one’s right and left hand/leg
equallywell).Inprofessions,suchasamongmusiciansandamongathletes,suchas
soccer players, ambidexterity is necessary. Perhaps ambidexterity presents us with
the new ‘normal’. If so, we might dub ambidexterity as multitasking.
In organizational and management sciences, organizational ambidexterity refers
to the ability of an organization to successfully exploit the present and explore the
future.Inorderto,accordingtoO’ReillyIIIandTushman(2013:324),‘competein
mature technologies and markets where efficiency, control, and incremental
improvement are prized and to also compete in new technologies and markets
where flexibility, autonomy, and experimentation are needed.’ In such organiza-
tions, typically, various commercial suppliers will recommend to implement novel
processes, structures, and cultures to foster ambidexterity.
The reader may have noted that ‘to explore and exploit’ are reminiscent of
Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model, as developed in Brain of the Firm (Beer
1972), The Heart of Enterprise (Beer 1995) and Diagnosing the System for
Organizations (Beer 1996). According to Beer, to remain viable, an organization
must have the potential to both adapt and realize the primary activities that con-
stitute its identity. To this end, Beer distinguishes three functions, to be performed
by every organization to realize its primary activities (i.e., to exploit): primary
activities,coordination,andcontrol.Next,theauthordiscernsthreefunctions,tobe
performed by every organization to adapt its primary activities (i.e., to explore):
control (once more), intelligence, and policy. The above five functions and their
interlinkagesconstituteBeer’sanswertothequestion:Whatfunctionsarenecessary
and sufficient for an organization to survive and what are the relations between
those functions? (Achterbergh and Vriens 2010: 181). Ambidexterity, in the sense
of Beer’s viability, is of essential importance to the military as, indeed to every
organization. The military needs to be ambidextrous to support the survival of the
society(ies) they are to serve and protect. If not, the military loses their relevance.
Prologue:Ambidexterity,Viability,andIdentity vii
Ambidexterity: Identity
When it is deemed important for the military to embrace the concept of
ambidexterity in managing and organizing, they should also be able to look at
themselves ambidextrously to become sensitive to their transformed identity.
Traditionally, the military is presented as a hierarchical, male, rule-based organi-
zation, preoccupied with security and secrecy, bringing a one-dimensional warrior
ethos to the office (Shields and Soeters 2017: 325). Such presentation does not
appear particularly promising when attempting to become skillful in achieving
(seemingly) contradictory goals. An ambidextrous identity implies the ability to
accept necessary change and to be ready to transform one’s efforts according to
changes in time and situation. As a consequence, today’s militaries are to be
enabledtoanticipateonandadapttoconstantlychangingcircumstances,regarding
both enemies and friends, war- and peace-fare, civil and military practices, safety
and security, and so on. In other words, in striving to become ambidextrous, the
military not only needs its appearance, but definitely also the chameleon’s eyes.
Bonding and Bridging
Thedynamicsinthisvolume,thatallelaborateambidexterity,aremainlybasedon
tensions between dichotomous categories. Starting of with the gender dichotomy
‘male’ versus ‘female’, that in itself is theoretically and physiologically limited
(because we now know that it all is more complex), all kinds of dichotomies are
introduced. The main principle that transcends the paralyzing status quo of the
dichotomy is the idea of bonding and bridging. Soeters put forward this idea to
bring ‘change’ into the theoretical framework. Both bonding and bridging are
valuable. Because bonding implies exploiting ones strength, whereas bridging
impliesexploring newvenues, establishing newalliances andcreatingnetworksof
weak ties that supersede thestrong ties thatat onepoint might slow one down. To
achieve ambidexterity, bonding and bridging are the key concepts.
Outline of This Book
In general, organizational and management literature focuses either on managing
military organizations or on organizational ambidexterity. As to research con-
nectingbothsubjects,thereappearstobeavoid.Forthisreason,wehavechosento
granttheparticipatingauthorsasmuchleewayaspossible,bothtothinkcreatively
and to share their expertise. We have actively scouted scholars from different
backgrounds. As editors, we thank all authors for their contributions, including
everyone who attempted to do so.
However,despitegivingafreereintoallauthors,attheendoftheday,wehave
hadtofindawaytomeaningfullygroupthedifferentcontributions.Tothisend,the
volume is divided into four parts, serving as categories. The first category entails
viii Prologue:Ambidexterity,Viability,andIdentity
contributions that connect managing military organizations and the concept of
ambidexterityattheorganizationallevel(i.e.,thestructuresandnetworksinwhich
the military operate). The second category hosts contributions on ambidextrously
combining different tasks and roles of and in military organizations. The third
categorypresentsstudiesoncontextualculturalissues.Thelastcategorycomprises
contributions in which the international dimension is central.
Thebookbeginsbyaliteraturestudy,reflectingontheapplicationoftheconcept
of ambidexterity to the military. Patricia M. Shields and Donald S. Travis suggest
thatorganizationalambidexterityoffersnumerousapplicationstofacilitateinnovation
and to improve organizational effectiveness in military organizations. In Chap. 2,
Paul C. van Fenema and Dominik Mahr expand on the innovation dimension by
using ambidexterity theory to understand how organizations succeed in innovation
throughexploitationandexploration.Tothisend,theauthorsapplythetheoryinan
empiricalsetting:collaborativedigitalservicesalongthemaritimevaluechain.Their
findings reveal six strategic organizational processes that connect exploitation and
explorationandencourageashiftfromastrategicviewonresourcestowardaview
that considers processes enacted by resources. Improving the organizational effec-
tivenessdimensionisworkedoutbyErikJ.deWaardandTomBijlsmainChap.3.
Theyapplyambidexteritytheorytoanalyzeauniquemilitarytrainingprogram,also
in the maritime domain, labeled African Winds. de Waard and Bijlsma make clear
that an ambidextrous military needs individual, group, business unit, and
concern-level coherence, with reciprocal interaction patterns between internal and
externalstakeholders, collaborating attheorganizational frontline.
Laying the grounds for Part II of the volume on tasks and roles, in Chap. 4,
Georg Frerks suggests going beyond ambidexterity. According to Frerks, the
political and military challenges and the lack of significant reform require the
military to become polydextrous in order to accomplish at least a modicum of
success in contemporary expeditionary peace operations. Next, in Chap. 5,
GwendolynBakx,JoriKalkman,andMyriameBollenarguethattheattentioninthe
literature for combining civil and military efforts has been on the modern expedi-
tionary context, whereas civil–military interaction in other deployment contexts
received less attention. In their chapter, they review the literature on civil–military
interactionandusecivil–militaryrelationsliteraturetosetuparesearchagendafor
studying ambidextrous civil–military interactions practices across deployment
contexts. In Chap. 6, Jan Van der Meulen unravels public opinion about bombing
ISISinSyriaand Iraq. He observesthat publicsupportfor bombingISIS hasbeen
broad and almost global. However, beneath the surface of self-evident support, as
Van der Meulen phrases it, difficult dilemmas can be discerned. In the chapter, he
frames the air campaign against ISIS a risk-transfer war. Next, Chiara Ruffa, in
Chap.7,reflectsontheissuethatalthoughmilitarytaskshavemultiplied,itremains
veryhardforthemilitarytoshiftfromafocusonclassicalskillstotherequirements
of ambidexterity. In Chap. 8, Esmeralda Kleinreesink empirically examines the
hypothesis whether distinct national operating styles of conflict resolution exist:
Some countries tend more toward a warrior culture and others more toward
non-violent means of conflict resolution. Such distinct national operational styles
might help, in the words of Kleinreesink, to build ambidextrous international
Prologue:Ambidexterity,Viability,andIdentity ix
military organizations to be able to both wage and end war. Kleinreesink finds
supporting evidence.
Both Ruffa and Kleinreesink point at the influence of national and military
cultural differences that build ambidextrous military organizations. Cultural issues
take center stage in the Part III of this volume. First, Delphine Resteigne and
Philippe Manigart, in Chap. 9, dive into the subjects of diversity and inclusion in
militaryorganizationsusingcontemporaryBelgianDefenseForcesasacasestudy.
They conceptualize and visualize the issues, identify problems, and find that
diversity still is not well accepted or, at least, valued. Finally, they recommend
organizational solutions. In Chap. 10, Erik Hedlund presents a generic model for
officereducationtoproduceofficerswithambidextrouscompetencesandskills.He
develops a programme for a common model for the planning and execution of
officer education in order to meet the ambidextrous requirements of both the mil-
itary profession and of higher education. Ad van Iterson, in Chap. 11, focuses on
theambidextrousnatureoforganizationalgossip.Gossipisbothusedtoblameand
topraiseothers.Hisinterestingcontributionshowsthatdiscourseambidexteritycan
takeonsubtleformsofcompliantandresistantorganizationalbehavior.Chapter12,
by René Schalk and Kirsten van der Linden, quantitatively investigates the influ-
ence of cultural differences on the relationship between employee and supervisor,
employee attitudes, and employee behavior. They use the results to discuss the
implications for managing cross-cultural differences and ambidexterity. From a
management control perspective, in Chap. 13, Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers sheds
another light on employee behavior by empirically studying the impact of military
culture on achieving careful—responsible and ethical—behavior with respect to
material resources. The author finds that military culture has a positive impact on
carefulbehavior.Discussingtheempiricalresultsofherinvestigationintobothhard
(formal) and soft (informal) controls, Heeren-Bogers concludes both types of
controls need to be ambidexterously applied. In the final chapter of Part III,
Chap. 14, Tessa op den Buijs, Manon Andres, and Bart-Jan van Duijvenbode, by
means of a qualitative empirical study, address the question how ex-service per-
sonnelexploitexistingsocialrelationshipswhileexploringnewrelationshipsinorder
toadapttolifebeyondmilitaryservice.Theauthorsdemonstratethatuponentering
thearmedforces,militarytiesarebeingformedandstrengthened,whilecivilianties
arebeingweakened.Afterleavingthearmedforces,militarytiesbecomeweakerand
less intense, whereas ties with the civilian family and friends are renewed or even
rebuild.Enteringandexitingthemilitaryappearquiteanambidextrousendeavor.
Part IV of thevolume—nationsand allies—starts with Chap.15 in which René
Moelker reports on the results of a study into international military collaboration.
An international team ofresearchers studied work processes, satisfaction,trustand
effectiveness, and efficiency among military and civilian personnel within the
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), whereas one in such an
international setting would expect quarreling, strife, and miscommunication,
resulting in low job satisfaction and high turnover, and this actually was not the
case. René Moelker explains why. Chapter 16, by Marion Bogers, Robert Beeres,
and Myriame Bollen, empirically investigates the extent to which the USA has
operated ambidextrously in the safety and security domains over the period
x Prologue:Ambidexterity,Viability,andIdentity
2006–2016. They compare absolute and relative contributions to different safety
and security dimensions (i.e., defense, poverty, migration, and climate change)
amongthe15largestglobalmilitarypowers.TheyfindthattheUSA—comparedto
the reference group—almost persistently scores in the top 5 and conclude that
during the Obama administration the USA indeed operated ambidextrously in the
safety and security domains.
Finally, in the Epilogue, Joseph Soeters wraps up the findings of the previous
chapters. Taken together, the papers in this volume constitute a substantial con-
tribution to investigate the relationships between ambidexterity and the military.
However, these are not the last words on the subject—they cannot be.
Robert Beeres
René Moelker
Jacqueline Heeren-Bogers
Esmeralda Kleinreesink
Jan Van der Meulen
References
Achterbergh,J.,&Vriens,D.(2010).Organizations.Socialsystemsconductingexperiments(2nd
reviseded.).Dordrecht:Springer.
Beer,S.(1972).Brainofthefirm.London:AllenLanethePenguinPress.
Beer,S.(1995).Theheartofenterprise.Chichester:Wiley.
Beer,S.(1996).Diagnosingthesystemfororganizations.Chichester:Wiley.
O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and
future.AcademyofManagementPerspectives,27(4),324–338.
Shields, P., & Soeters, J. (2017). Peaceweaving: Jane Addams, positive peace, and public
administration.AmericanReviewofPublicAdministration,47(3),323–339.https://doi.org/10.
1177/0275074015589629.
Soeters, J. (2008). Ambidextrous military: Coping with contradictions of new security policies.
In M. Den Boer & J. De Wilde (Eds.), The viability of human security (pp. 109–124).
Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress.
Soeters,J.,VanFenema,P.C.,Beeres,R.(Eds.)(2010).Managingmilitaryorganizations:Theory
andpractice.Abingdon:Routledge.