A merger - in the military

The Navy and the Air Force say they will merge Pearl and Hickam, and do it within a year. Redundant functions at the two bases will be consolidated, efficiencies will be achieved, and the resulting joint base will execute all the functions the bases now perform on their own, but more nimbly. If it works out that way, it will be a momentous event in world military history, because until now it has been the practice of military bureaucracy, in America and elsewhere, to grow ever larger, clumsier, and more focused on self-preservation than mission. Two of the most searing criticisms of "management" I have ever read were both leveled against hidebound military bureaucracy by their civilian leadership. In World War II, Prime Minister Winston Churchill bristled at an admiral's insistence that "traditionally" the British Navy should take the lead in a certain military action. The British Navy's only traditions, Churchill replied, were sodomy and the lash. More recently, Donald Rumsfeld, while secretary of defense under President Bush, declared that Pentagon bureaucracy had become so cumbersome that a new weapon could not be approved until it was obsolete. All large organizations, whether military or not, indeed whether public or private. become, when they achieve sufficient mass, distracted by their own self-perpetuation. Above a certain size, staffing becomes sufficiently ample that people can be tied up for meetings a lot. A meeting of 20 people that lasts for two hours uses 40 manhours, equivalent to losing an entire person's work for a whole week, and in practice a one-hour meeting of half a dozen people can do the same thing, because of the time spent preparing for the meeting, reporting to people who weren't in the meeting on the meeting, and having sidebar discussions with people after the meeting. The loss of manhours is a best case scenario. This is what you lose if the meeting doesn't "accomplish" anything. Often, however, a meeting leads to make-work projects, compromises to good ideas, and change orders on contracts that otherwise would cost much less. And heaven forfend that the meeting is about org charts and staff levels, because then the compromises made can be really costly, creating more positions to be filled by people who also have meetings. The merger of Pearl and Hickam has been in planning for four years! Why do these things take so long? Let's leave out all the selfish reasons. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that no one is simply protecting his own turf as a matter of tradition because he has no taste for sodomy and the lash. You might argue to save a marginal function because in a large bureaucracy the easiest way to sideline people who don't work very hard to assign them to something that isn't vital to the mission. You might try to save some positions because if we went to war you'd want to be able to call on the services of some good men and women who are currently stuck in marginal assignments. In a small organization you don't have that luxury but in a large one you do. What I'm getting at is that this merger, apparently now fully "agreed upon," even to the point of announcing that the Navy will take the lead, will be harder than it looks, and if even incremental streamlining can actually be accomplished it will be a great victory for those who manage it.

Comments

[Doug]

It is not as radical as it may sound. From what I've heard of this merger, it concerns only the nuts-and-bolts of operating the facility infrastructure of the adjoining bases, not on the military mission of each branch.

[Yes, that's right - the missions all remain - it's a question of streamlining the command structure, which is to say, the bureaucracy. HMD]

[Michael]

Only argument now between Navy and Air Force is who has the better Pilots. I say Go Navy.

I like the concept of a Navy Seals Team. 1 officer and 5 enlisted men. With 6 men acting together as if a bigger force is being seen.

Not how many people on a workforce but how many actually working and accomplishing things.

Let the Military run Military Bases. Politicians run the Government. Not both by Government.