Education Essays - Army Training Learning

The Army as an exercise and Learning Organisation

Abstract

This essay handles the challenges confronted by the Educational and Training Services in working both with modern warfare whilst overcoming having less basic skills which is now a liability, by evaluating the potency of the forces as a learning organisation.

In order to advance and improve as an Military, Army teachers not only have to offer with basic skills shortfalls, but supporting other forearms in overcoming social problems, in our own country and in the countries in which we are operating. Also, an analysis of the way the ETS can deliver the educational needs for a hard situation, where not only basic skills but also languages, culture and a knowledge of modern battle and counter-insurgency techniques are needed. The down sides faced by the ETS in educating methodologies in order to over come the wide selection of topics and abilities confronted by an Military educator both in barracks and on procedures are also assessed at length.

"What is the good of experience if you don't reflect? Frederick the Great

Lt N Mazzei

Seminar Paper

The Military as a Learning Organisation

Introduction

1. In order for any company to be ˜effective' it's important for the company to recognize what its key goals are. Though this might sound apparent, large organisations such as the Military constantly need to identify precisely what its seeks are in order to ensure that it's ˜doing the right things' (Drucker: 1977). To carry out this, it is important to gather ˜individual motivations, norms and institutional prospects', as the effectiveness of the organisation is in accordance with the appropriateness of the problem (Mintzberg: 1979). The Military's situation right now is one of suffered operations in international cultures to get other nations' internal security.

It is important to recognize this in order to demonstrate how the Army continues to be focused on a solid strategic level of thought rather than tactical one. Overall, it's important to evaluate the Military's capability to ˜learn as an company', an even more difficult demand than many other organisations face.

For all the chat of training and learning among the authors of doctrine, producers of coverage and practitioners, there's a lack of focus on working with the Military as an organisation. Theories of learning hardly ever come in professional training programs for training members of the Armed forces.

Often, the process of learning is overlooked and ˜accepted' as something that just occurs within working out environment, with the correct knowledge being discovered equally a matter of course (almost as though it was by some wonderful osmosis). This failing to cope with the training process, for individuals but especially as an company, will restrain the Army for many years. There is a good lack of resources made by professional academics who deal on a regular basis with the knowledge of ˜learning' on the introduction of the human reference within the organisation and the company itself and the knowing that this learning may be in a anyway problematic is rarely mentioned.

2. Methods to learning

There are numerous different methods to learning, two of which will be used to help expand our understanding the Military as a learning organisation.

i. Behaviourist Orientation. John B. Watson created the stimulus-response model. On this the environment sometimes appears as providing stimuli to which individuals develop replies. This is significantly the current learning process prompted on the Control, Management and Management programs at Education Centres. According to Adam Hartley (1998) four key principles come to the fore:

• Activist. Learning is way better when the learner is dynamic rather than unaggressive. ('Learning by doing' is usually to be applauded).

• Repetition, imitation and practice. Frequent practice - and practice in different contexts - is necessary for understanding how to happen. Skills aren't acquired without recurrent practice.

• Positive Transactional Strategy. Positive re-enforcers like rewards and successes are better negative incidents like punishments and failures.

• The environment of clear goals and objectives. ˜By the end of this period participants will have the ability to'. With this comes a problem with competencies and product methods to curriculum.

ii. Humanist Orientation. This approach focuses on the prospect of humans to develop as individuals, somewhat than as a methodical approach viewing individuals as things that may be controlled within parameters. Maslow's hierarchy of needs could very well be the most widely known example, which also used to the CLM course to aid NCOs in understanding motivation, from physiological must self actualization.

The theory requires each level to be fulfilled until progress can be produced to another level. Understanding where learning comes in Maslow's hierarchy is not yet determined, though Tennant (Tennant 1997: 13) argues that obtaining home actualisation may suggest developing humans to what they are capable in which education would play an integral role.

• Theory of Learning Organisations. Two ideas which are of particular use regarding Learning in the MILITARY will be looked at.

i. The phases of learning (Increase and Single Loop Learning). For Argyris and Sch¶n, learning is all about making mistakes, realising those faults and then rectifying the situation. They identify two operations to finding solutions to the problem. The foremost is identified as one loop learning, where a resolution is found without a fundamental change to the composition or actual theory. This comes from unexpected benefits that arises from outside the expected ˜norm' from actions made and are strategies put in location to maintain results within the expected norms Argyris and Sch¶n (Argyris and Sch¶n, 1978: 2).

The norms and expectations themselves stay fundamentally unchanged Argyris and Sch¶n (1978: 2). An alternative solution response is to question the norms themselves. That is described as double-loop learning. Which has a change in the beliefs of our set guidelines we change the field where the system seeks to keep its balance (Ashby, 1960). Strategies and assumptions may change along with ideas which affect the individual and the organisation. Chris Argyris' research has targeted greatly on exploring how do increase their convenience of double-loop learning.

Argyris argues that double-loop learning is necessary for establishments and organisations, functioning in dynamic, speedily changing and uncertain contexts, in order to make informed decisions in (Argyris; 1990). This method of learning is highly suitable to a powerful institution such as the Armed Forces. Single-loop learning, then, reveals when goals, prices, frameworks and strategies are overlooked.

The emphasis is on ˜techniques and making techniques more productive' (Usher and Bryant: 1989) Reflection is targeted towards making the strategy far better within the framework and the restraints of the theory. Double-loop learning ˜includes questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies' (Argyris and Sch¶n, 1996).

Argyris added to the single and double loop learning theory (advocated in its rawest form by Ashby) with the addition of conventional values about correct behavior in institutionsand cultural groups. These governing beliefs can be clustered together using world views, and therefore into aspect of organisational learning, within Models, which Argyris has recognized two.

Model 1

• "Achieve the purposes as the professional perceives them

• Maximise earning and minimise losing

• Minimise eliciting negative feelings

• Be rational and minimise emotionality"

This produces adversarial and defensive action strategies, poor interactions and poor learning (1982, p. 86)

Model 2

• "Valid information

• Free and prepared choice

• Internal determination to the choice and constant monitoring of the implementation"

The action strategies are less protective and more collaborative and are conducive to effective connections and learning. (1982, p. 102). These models, Argyris implies, show how organisations enter in the training process and how successful they are in obtaining organisational learning. Argyris discovered that most individuals and organisations will advocate the use of Model 2 worth which will profit the organisation and others.

In other words, it is their ideal goal. However, it is far more likely for individuals to actually occupy Model 1 ethnicities, due to the competitiveness and culture of unbiased work ethic that traditional western society is accessible around. In addition, the Army shows lots of other features which adds to this. (Argyris, 1982)

• Power is one. When there are power dissimilarities between people, it is appealing to "solve" problems (or at least get rid of them) by fiat somewhat than understanding.

• Specialisation is another. People go after the goals of their own position or section or branch, and may thus lose look of the overall goals. This produces competition alternatively than collaboration between person and person and between section and section. Competition alone is based only around promotion as there is no room for ˜money making incentives'.

• Designing organisations around careers alternatively than around people is one third. People are expected to leave at home a lot more individual areas of them, including their thoughts and thoughts. A false rationality results. (Argyris, 1982)

Overall, Argyris and Sch¶n's ideas on company learning have the ability to take aspects of both approaches talked about in the starting paragraphs. It is important to discover that ˜each person in a business constructs his or her own representation or image of the theory-in-use of the entire' (Sch¶n, 1978).

This statement stocks many hallmarks of both the humanist methodology, with Maslow's point of view included demonstrating the way the individual point of view and needs have an impact on the company. The behaviourist, with the influence of the organisation guiding the average person is also shown. With encouragement towards Model 2 culture then organisational efficiency will force for greater organisational learning.

ii. Communities of practice. This theory points out that all communities and ones of practice, in which all folks are associates of. Wegner and Lave created a style of situated learning which recommended learning involved engagement in just a 'community of practice'. The Military is too a community and within it are ways of practice, varying from culture, humour, training and education. As Wenger points out, "These procedures are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the continual quest for a shared business. It makes sense, therefore to call these varieties of areas, ˜neighborhoods of practice' (Wenger, 1998). Corresponding to Wenger (1998), a community of practice defines itself along three proportions:

• What it is about its united purpose as known and continually renegotiated by its customers. Though course for The Army comes from outside, that is definitely united in its goals and methods by it membership.

• How it functions - shared proposal that bind customers jointly into a communal entity. The Military is a sociable entity in an even more extreme way than the majority of organisations.

• What capability they have produced the shared repertoire of communal resources (exercises, sensibilities, artefacts, vocabulary, styles, etc. ) that participants have developed over time. (Wenger, 1999). The Military would identify itself as a sub-culture within the united kingdom.

Understanding the company is paramount to it developing and learning and so the communities way has been viewed upon with enthusiastic about the previous 10-20 years which includes arisen along with the growth of affinity for the learning company. This growth forced the interest of academics towards casual organisational cultures and constructions as well as analysing formal buildings, both of which exist within neighborhoods of practice.

Similarities is seen with Sch¶n's and Argyris' "Models. The focus of areas of practice however, amplifies the informal rather than the formal aspect pressed by the formal composition within the company. The model also focuses on those within the organization and how benefits could accrue to the organization itself, and didn't lie mainly with the average person members of the community of practice. This then suits likewise with Argyris' Model 2.

Within these ideas and approaches to learning, we can look at the Army's success as a learning organisation, concentrating on the period of change earned with the disorders of 9/11, the huge increase in operational activity and the issues faced by the modern Army. We will identify where these ideas fit within the Military's methods of learning and additional more how they can be used to enhance the Military's learning efficiency as an company.

4. The Army as a Learning Organisation

The Conditions such as ˜the tactical corporal' and ˜three block battle' remind us constantly about the necessity for well informed, well trained and well disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with difficulties that such sophisticated procedures present (http://www. publications. parliament. uk: 30/08/07).

Key to working with these issues is enhancing the soldier's decision making potential, so the soldier is better able to overcome problems encountered, think on the toes and apply their knowledge to cope with situations that they have not been explicitly informed how to solve.

Further to this is the need for even more and advanced schooling in our troops and officials, without which development of our tactical, functional and tactical capabilities will be seriously limited. The American military, after spending thirty years forgetting lessons learned in Vietnam, has taken the step to educate their troops in counter insurgency warfare, with officials reading British counter insurgency guides.

They have also used books written by academics and ex - customers of the British isles armed forces, talking of experiences in Aden, Malaya and Northern Ireland. Dealing with asymmetric warfare requires different things from our military from regular warfare, with culture, language and morality more important than applying firepower. Dealing with mass media and digital communication as well as making use of the regulations of armed conflict to unfamiliar earth.

Creating change in such an company is not simple, The Military, with a stereotype for blindly pursuing commands, a rigid framework and an incapability to move outside of its constraints, must change like any other company. In order to change, the Military must move forward to face whatever hazards it is opposing and additional to get this done, must learn how it must operate.

This change is not a new process and has been occurring in Britain's Armed Forces since the first military revolution at Agincourt. How exactly we learn as an company however, has not changed. Ashby's concept of single and two times loop learning will fit neatly into the military composition.

Firstly, most would declare the Military as a double loop system, changing its methods from the bottom up and therefore would be considered by Argyris as a Model 2 company. This is certainly not the way the majority of military services learning performs. The Army would quite definitely certainly be a Model 1 organisation, aiming instead to apply resources to resolve problems rather than affect a change in the framework and theory behind their current functions.

For example, much like the People in the usa experienced in 2003-2006 in Iraq, the Uk Military increased its force security and removed itself from the surroundings it was attempting to control. Further to this, the control the pushes were wanting to export did not consider free radicals within the machine which were fundamentally uncontrollable, particularly from outside this technique. With respect to learning communities, which recognises the importance of informal organisations and constructions, the Army was not establishing a suitable environment to allow eventual control of the machine.

It's defensiveness of its methods, stemming from an over-confidence from experience in North Ireland and Bosnia, preserved the Military's place as a Model 1 organisation, maintained the single loop learning process and so never allowed room for version and advancement.

In order to determine itself as a dual loop system, it requires to break from the Model 1 process and build itself as a system that welcome innovation. This is not a simple procedure, as the armed forces relies closely on the system it is utilized to using. For example, the survival of horses cavalry in military systems around the world shows how difficult development is ideal for the military in getting into new systems.

Even though solitary loop learning could have confirmed that in the period of industrial warfare the horse was no more effective, many countries still attempted to use them as ideal for range of motion in a nuclear conflict (Katzenbach, 1958), another aspect of informal structures and neighborhoods of practice impacting on technology and learning. John Nagl, a US Colonel, talked about organisational learning and focused on the distinctions of the UK and US army's capacity to modify, learn and innovate. To be able to identify any armed forces as a learning establishment (In cases like this, we will call a learning organisation as a Model 2, twice loop learner), Nagl lists five questions (Nagl, 2005)

• 1. Will the army promote recommendations from the field?

• 2. Are subordinates urged to question superiors and plans?

• 3. Will the company regularly question its basic assumptions?

• 4. Are high-ranking officials routinely in close connection with those on the floor and open to their recommendations?

• 5. Are standard operating procedures made locally and informally or enforced from the centre?

All of John Nagl's ideas of organisational learning fit within the dual loop learning process and along with Argyris and Sch¶n's ideas of learning organisations. That is definitely clear that the double loop learning process can be employed to the British Army.

5. The Teachers Role.

Within the procedure of forcing the Army to become Model 2 company (the word forced can be used as the culture of the Military is not one of comfortable change) the Educational and Training Services must play an integral role. As the ETS restructures itself to match the Military's future needs it, it must also recognise itself as a learning institution and be a Model 2 company itself. Its assignments within CLM, dialects and training and development will obviously move with this; nonetheless it is in the change of CLM which is key as this is where we will have most connection with the rest of the Army.

CLM V3 is a severe differ from the previous system where we will be necessary to ˜educate ahead' (a horrendous term) and deliver to the learner at their position somewhat than expect them to come quickly to us. In addition, it requires a sizable amount of distance learning on behalf of the learner, putting the pressure of learning on the learner alternatively than utilising the figure of the instructor to promote learning (something Sch¶n was famous for).

6. ConclusionThis procedure for moving the education onto the unit and the learner alternatively than in the centre and heart of the educator is a fantastic example of one loop learning. Instead of changing the theory behind what we should want to achieve, the Army intends to improve the course to being shipped by others who aren't in the learning process. The pressure of areas of practice will greatly affect the training process, most likely by hugely increasing the quantity of plagiarism by military who do not understand the benefit for the learning with their careers and personal development.

This failure to discover the two times loop learning process as a fundamental shift in strategy as opposed to the method itself may also be shown on the Army's practises away from the ETS, especially in the infantry and the fight arms on operations.

The Americans, using their Iraq surge, performed more than flood 30, 000 more military into Baghdad; they shown on their past errors, searched for alternative solutions and implemented the process. They focused less on brute push and even more on the mind, with information being the key area they process. Because of the British Army as a community of practice caught in an activity of tradition stemming from hundreds of years of success on procedures, we've not experienced this same reflection process.

The British Military is unquestionably an average Model 1 organisation with aspirations to be a Model 2 company. John Nagl identifies this with his questions by using an Army's potential to ˜innovate', questions we are not able to efficiently answer. Because were a Model 1 company we become defensive when others criticise our activities and often giggle at the People in the usa attempts at having control to a system that has way too many variables.

But in this technique, the Americans uncovered they must create conditions for local invention alternatively than too force the machine to be managed in the process they wish. Outside of operations, the English Army still relies on the old system of "the organisation learners because we train it, an ironic position to be in as the Army prides itself on being the most experienced Army on earth. Argyris and Sch¶n identify a process of phases (Argyris and Sch¶n, 1978) by which the Model 2 company can be achieved, which Nagl's process was based upon.

Through this technique, it would no longer be essential for individuals to go full circle on a learning process (like the OODA loop or Kolb's cycle) and can amend the procedure through two times loop learning. This is only going to be achieved once a Model 2 company is achieved.

Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Facilitating organizational learning, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Harris, A (Open School Press, 2000) Organizational Efficiency and Improvement in Education.

Hartley, J. (1998) Learning and Learning. A research perspective, London: Routledge.

Litow, A. (1991) Negotiating Coaching/Learning Connections: A report of Reciprocity in Guide Discourse. Dissertation Abstracts International. 52-04, #1313A

Mintzberg, H (1979) The Structuring of Organisations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Petty, G. (Nelson Thornes, 2004) Teaching Today 3rd Release,

Reece, I (Business Education Web publishers Limited 2003) Teaching, Training and Learning

Tennant, M. (1988, 1997) Psychology and Adult Learning, London: Routledge.

Trowler, P (Collins Educational, 1995) Looking into Education and Training

Usher, R. and Bryant, I. (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research, London: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998) 'Neighborhoods of Practice. Learning as a social system', Systems Thinker, http://www. co-i-l. com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss. shtml. Accessed March 03, 2008.