sections Sections

    Categories Categories

    Army Reserves Capability

    Quote Originally Posted by Riđđu View Post
    That problem is not exactly limited to Australia. There are always some who think that regulars are super-humans and especially officers are next from God, while reserves are just weekend soldiers (even thought they might have long experience and served in many operations). And when you repeat these attitudes long enough everyone involved start to believe in this (after all there is a kernel of truth in these stereotypes) and things get polarised.

    Leadership culture (some might say directing culture) in the army is somewhat different than in civilian organizations and reservists are often more used to civilian style management practices (and vice versa). Therefore managing reservists requires different skill set although they are all supposed to be soldiers in the same army.

    Off course I exaggerated by generalizing, but donīt you recognize these things?

    PS These partly artificial divides between different personnel groups are quite common in old government bureaucracies and waste too much human resources.
    Fair enough. I guess I hold Australia to a higher standard which is unfair.

    The first problem is in leadership.

    The term "Weekend Soldier" is a dehumanization of assets. The assets (being human) will therefore function at a lower performance no matter what the situation, but especially when integrated with "professional" soldiers where they need to communicate to be successful in a task or operation.

    This leads to an elitist mentality which by definition is qualitative or relative. so it in fact leads to something worse where the elitist body has a low yard stick for comparrison (an unmotivated and unskilled warrior class to compare themselves against) to establish their superior social position. If you didn't understand that it means; using the term "Weekend Warrior" leads to decay of capacity and capability where your professional or "full time" soldiering body becomes DELUDED as to their ability to do anything.

    It fosters further procreation of the same attitude so that the elitists will then create a body that they in turn "look up to" and the danger then becomes that the only body of capable soldiers in your defense force are the elite of the elitists...

    It is comical.

    Now I am beginning to understand why Australia hasn't committed regular soldiers to Afghanistan. If the above culture holds true, then the Australian Army has a negative frictional force or vector affecting their capability and capacity to contribute in a meaningful manner and only their Special Forces can achieve any sort of combat performance.

    If you get rid of the reserves instead of correcting this stagnant culture then you will foster a situation (or create the environment) in which the Defense Force can decay at an exponential rate. Not unlike the collapse in an eco-system such as a fish population. The sudden catastrophic collapse is not linear as politicians might like to think. The integrity of the organization is undermined and becomes one that can suddenly collapse. i.e. one day it looks fine and then the next week it is in a shambles.

    You can see these same pressures at work amongst NATO allies who are threatening to pull out. The "pull out" is the non-linear collapse.

    The reason they are pulling out is they can no longer sustain the conflict, both politically and literally.

    As to leadership culture in Civilian populations you can see how the two (the directive culture you speak to riddu) and I guess the antithesis would be a collective leadership culture are affected in recent US presidential adminstrations. The common denominator between the last 2 administrations is that they have both held rigid to a militaristic directive culture during their campaigns for the White house. But in so doing they have failed to recognize and/or change their leadership style once they have won the seat of power.

    In other words you can afford to make assumptions with your own staff during the campaign ( as a military leader can who is backed by a hierarchal culture day in and day out). But you cannot afford to make assumptions when that staff transitions to becoming a cabinet. Doesn't work and you end up with a lot of people spinning their wheels and not fulfilling their potential.

    This comes back to my first point in the previous post. If you want people to perform. If you want your soldiers (in this case) to maximize their collective worth, then you have to treat them right. That means no in-fighting and no dehumanization and no false yard sticks.

    I sound like good old George W. Bush


    This article was originally published in forum thread: Army Reserves Capability started by battlensign Check out original post: Click here